But this ignores the problem that every time she opens her mouth she sounds foolish. And that she essentially has to become an entirely different candidate overnight. Which is only fixable in theory. But real people don't just change all their instincts. Even after major events they revert back to who they are. And being a prosecutor isn't a winning message to win an election if that's all you have. That just gets you elected mayor of your city.
This is like a game of hearts. You can accept losing with Biden. Or fight to lose with Harris. The only realistic chance to win is to shoot the moon with the dream ticket.
The problem is is that Harris only polls decently because most people have forgotten her. When they did see her at the primaries she was soundly rejected. She would have to be hidden away. Much in the same way they should have done with Biden. But with the chaos this would create that's not a viable strategy. The barely known governors are polling at similar numbers. But have clear skies to go up with exposure.
How about Kamala Harris and Jamie Damon. Sounds unconventional and he is a big bank but so what? He is a life long Democrat and moreover is generally respected as the top CEO in the county. That will bring the white male Wall Street crowd. He is also a very global figure and would be a great balance to the ticket. Is it crazy ?
The issue is whihc Harris will be the candidate? First generation immigrant who can fix the border? The prosecutor that can lead nationwide policing reform? A candidate who puts subject verb and object in a sentence in that order? A candidate who will run hard against rich man Trump's deficits, and tax cuts for the rich?
Reading about Harris' role in the railroading of the Backpage founders has convinced me that she is a vile and worthless excuse for a human being with no principles other than that she deserves power. Her team literally drove an innocent man to suicide. She helped destroy an important website that many people relied on for their livelihoods in order to get credit for fighting "sex trafficking," a crime so rare that it is practically nonexistent (unless you inflate the numbers by counting normal sex work as "trafficking," which the government typically does). In a just world someone like her would not hold any power over anyone's life.
She also sponsored the FOSTA/SESTA law, which has made it vastly more difficult for sex workers to use the Internet for their work. This has made it much harder for them to screen clients and forced them to work on the streets instead of indoors, greatly increasing the danger of their profession.
It's really a sign of just how terrible Trump would be for the country that I agree Harris should probably replace Biden. Trump is, if anything, an even bigger scumbag than Harris. I tend to focus on policy over personality. I've joked in the past that I'd vote for the reanimated corpse of Ted Bundy if he would pass the policies I support. That's probably a bit of an unfair comparison though: the FOSTA/SESTA law that Harris backed probably caused more death and suffering for women than Ted Bundy did. On the other hand, national abortion restrictions might well do more damage for women than Harris and Bundy combined.
Can someone explain the difference between “between-sample” and “within-sample” error in the context of polling?
The linked tweet in the article mentions “within-subject” error, which I think of in the context of repeated-measures design (like surveying the same person at multiple time points) but am not familiar with in the context of multiple independent samples drawn over time.
I think what Broockman is saying is that a poll finding that, within a particular sample, Harris does better against Trump than Biden is a reliable finding for that sample. Which seems right. But I can't make much sense of the idea that the Biden-Harris difference (Harris margin vs. Trump minus Biden margin vs. Trump) is less subject to sampling error than the Biden margin vs. Trump itself.
I think the more pressing question is whether replacing Biden is realistic in the first place. State laws bind delegates and I don’t trust the legal profession to know whether it matters that the nominee declines to run. They have not exactly been the most competent segment of our commentariat lately.
Maybe somebody's saying it in these kinds of comment threads and it's not bubbled up to the surface yet, but the best way to untie the replace-Biden-Gordian knot is: President Whitmer, VP Shapiro, and Supreme Court Justice Harris.
Yes, Harris is on the old side for the Supreme Court (stay till you die partisan edition), but it seems like it would cater to KHive sentiment, put Harris in a role similar to where she did so well in Senate committee meetings, put the first person of Asian descent on the bench, and shore up MI and PA electoral college votes with probably coattails in WI. It might hurt a bit with Hispanic voters who may now see Sotomayor's seat as theirs, and of course you'd have to convince Sotomayor and Harris to do it, but it seems to solve multiple problems quite well.
It seems relevant to this discussion that Pelosi (who is having an extraordinary career finale right now) is calling for Biden to step down but not for Harris to take his place. She and the rest of the congressional Democrats could be saying "it is time for Harris," but they aren't. Pelosi clearly wants to switch out the whole ticket, and even pro-Harris takes like Matt's tend to concede that this would be a good idea if it could be pulled off.
I wish this would all be over one way or another soon, but I do have to admit that watching the "Ridin' with Biden" squad ranting about "rich, coastal elites" like Nancy Pelosi is entertaining in its own way. (People seem to be split 50-50 on whether it's all lies that Pelosi would move against Biden or if she's finally unmasked herself as the handmaiden of the ultra rich that they always knew she was.)
As I might have said earlier, I not only fuly support Kamala Harris for the Dem nomination, but I 100% think Biden should resign right now and she should be sworn in as POTUS.
She has my vote and my full support, including some meager donation amounts I've been holding off on since the debate.
As I might have said earlier, I not only fuly support Kamala Harris for the Dem nomination, but I 100% think Biden should resign right now and she should be sworn in as POTUS.
She has my vote and my full support, including some meager donation amounts I've been holding off on since the debate.
I had a conversation the other day about selfish Biden and Kamala-as-candidate with a woman I've know for years who's a dedicated Democrat. She's convinced America will never elect a woman, so she hates Kamala as a candidate. She fits your description of "people who are profoundly convinced that all of Harris’ political struggles stem from racism and misogyny" perfectly.
I agree, but she worked forty years in consulting, and that environment might make you keenly aware of the unequal treatment of men and women. I also think our early experiences color our outlook for a lifetime. We resist seeing progress if the progress contradicts our prior beliefs.
But this ignores the problem that every time she opens her mouth she sounds foolish. And that she essentially has to become an entirely different candidate overnight. Which is only fixable in theory. But real people don't just change all their instincts. Even after major events they revert back to who they are. And being a prosecutor isn't a winning message to win an election if that's all you have. That just gets you elected mayor of your city.
This is like a game of hearts. You can accept losing with Biden. Or fight to lose with Harris. The only realistic chance to win is to shoot the moon with the dream ticket.
The problem is is that Harris only polls decently because most people have forgotten her. When they did see her at the primaries she was soundly rejected. She would have to be hidden away. Much in the same way they should have done with Biden. But with the chaos this would create that's not a viable strategy. The barely known governors are polling at similar numbers. But have clear skies to go up with exposure.
How about Kamala Harris and Jamie Damon. Sounds unconventional and he is a big bank but so what? He is a life long Democrat and moreover is generally respected as the top CEO in the county. That will bring the white male Wall Street crowd. He is also a very global figure and would be a great balance to the ticket. Is it crazy ?
Simon
Dimon damit lol
The issue is whihc Harris will be the candidate? First generation immigrant who can fix the border? The prosecutor that can lead nationwide policing reform? A candidate who puts subject verb and object in a sentence in that order? A candidate who will run hard against rich man Trump's deficits, and tax cuts for the rich?
Sounds good to me!
Reading about Harris' role in the railroading of the Backpage founders has convinced me that she is a vile and worthless excuse for a human being with no principles other than that she deserves power. Her team literally drove an innocent man to suicide. She helped destroy an important website that many people relied on for their livelihoods in order to get credit for fighting "sex trafficking," a crime so rare that it is practically nonexistent (unless you inflate the numbers by counting normal sex work as "trafficking," which the government typically does). In a just world someone like her would not hold any power over anyone's life.
She also sponsored the FOSTA/SESTA law, which has made it vastly more difficult for sex workers to use the Internet for their work. This has made it much harder for them to screen clients and forced them to work on the streets instead of indoors, greatly increasing the danger of their profession.
It's really a sign of just how terrible Trump would be for the country that I agree Harris should probably replace Biden. Trump is, if anything, an even bigger scumbag than Harris. I tend to focus on policy over personality. I've joked in the past that I'd vote for the reanimated corpse of Ted Bundy if he would pass the policies I support. That's probably a bit of an unfair comparison though: the FOSTA/SESTA law that Harris backed probably caused more death and suffering for women than Ted Bundy did. On the other hand, national abortion restrictions might well do more damage for women than Harris and Bundy combined.
I want to pound-the-table endorse this take.
This is straight up your best take in months. Bravo and 100% agreed.
Can someone explain the difference between “between-sample” and “within-sample” error in the context of polling?
The linked tweet in the article mentions “within-subject” error, which I think of in the context of repeated-measures design (like surveying the same person at multiple time points) but am not familiar with in the context of multiple independent samples drawn over time.
I think what Broockman is saying is that a poll finding that, within a particular sample, Harris does better against Trump than Biden is a reliable finding for that sample. Which seems right. But I can't make much sense of the idea that the Biden-Harris difference (Harris margin vs. Trump minus Biden margin vs. Trump) is less subject to sampling error than the Biden margin vs. Trump itself.
I saw The Rolling Stones last night and I know Mick can’t legally run but IMO he’s in good enough shape for it and could probably win.
I think the more pressing question is whether replacing Biden is realistic in the first place. State laws bind delegates and I don’t trust the legal profession to know whether it matters that the nominee declines to run. They have not exactly been the most competent segment of our commentariat lately.
Maybe somebody's saying it in these kinds of comment threads and it's not bubbled up to the surface yet, but the best way to untie the replace-Biden-Gordian knot is: President Whitmer, VP Shapiro, and Supreme Court Justice Harris.
Yes, Harris is on the old side for the Supreme Court (stay till you die partisan edition), but it seems like it would cater to KHive sentiment, put Harris in a role similar to where she did so well in Senate committee meetings, put the first person of Asian descent on the bench, and shore up MI and PA electoral college votes with probably coattails in WI. It might hurt a bit with Hispanic voters who may now see Sotomayor's seat as theirs, and of course you'd have to convince Sotomayor and Harris to do it, but it seems to solve multiple problems quite well.
It seems relevant to this discussion that Pelosi (who is having an extraordinary career finale right now) is calling for Biden to step down but not for Harris to take his place. She and the rest of the congressional Democrats could be saying "it is time for Harris," but they aren't. Pelosi clearly wants to switch out the whole ticket, and even pro-Harris takes like Matt's tend to concede that this would be a good idea if it could be pulled off.
I wish this would all be over one way or another soon, but I do have to admit that watching the "Ridin' with Biden" squad ranting about "rich, coastal elites" like Nancy Pelosi is entertaining in its own way. (People seem to be split 50-50 on whether it's all lies that Pelosi would move against Biden or if she's finally unmasked herself as the handmaiden of the ultra rich that they always knew she was.)
As I might have said earlier, I not only fuly support Kamala Harris for the Dem nomination, but I 100% think Biden should resign right now and she should be sworn in as POTUS.
She has my vote and my full support, including some meager donation amounts I've been holding off on since the debate.
As I might have said earlier, I not only fuly support Kamala Harris for the Dem nomination, but I 100% think Biden should resign right now and she should be sworn in as POTUS.
She has my vote and my full support, including some meager donation amounts I've been holding off on since the debate.
I had a conversation the other day about selfish Biden and Kamala-as-candidate with a woman I've know for years who's a dedicated Democrat. She's convinced America will never elect a woman, so she hates Kamala as a candidate. She fits your description of "people who are profoundly convinced that all of Harris’ political struggles stem from racism and misogyny" perfectly.
That seems awfully fatalistic given how close it was in 2016 and that she even won the popular vote.
I agree, but she worked forty years in consulting, and that environment might make you keenly aware of the unequal treatment of men and women. I also think our early experiences color our outlook for a lifetime. We resist seeing progress if the progress contradicts our prior beliefs.
With you on this tough reality Matty. President Biden's choice to withdraw is a rare kind of heroism - in choosing NOT to push forward. https://revkin.substack.com/p/as-democrats-face-risky-momentous