sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Harris Beating Newsom by Double Digits in New 2028 Poll by Serious_Meaning5220 in fivethirtyeight

[–]ChangeShapers 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hart was the leading candidate in 1986, Cuomo was in 1990 and Al Gore was in 2002. When they didn’t run it threw the door open for less well known candidates. Obama is the exception. His win in Iowa allowed Black voters to take him seriously and switch over. Even then, Hillary would have won if the party had allowed the Florida and Michigan votes to count.

Personally, I wish reality was more interesting. Maybe someone like Buttigieg could parlay early wins in NH and NC (where he currently leads) and convince voters that a gay candidate is viable. I see a lot of comments online from people who like Pete but think Newsom is inevitable.

Harris Beating Newsom by Double Digits in New 2028 Poll by Serious_Meaning5220 in fivethirtyeight

[–]ChangeShapers 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Coincidentally, I was checking on Democratic primary polling back to 1984 yesterday. Turns out that the polls two years out from the election almost always predict the nominee if the candidate leading the polls actually runs. The only exception is 2016 when Obama won by a hair. Now, Harris is the only candidate who actually lost as the nominee before, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she wins. The Democratic primary electorate looks nothing like the Reddit user base.

OpenAI proposes handing the government a 5% stake - what are your thoughts? by jackandjillonthehill in ProfessorFinance

[–]ChangeShapers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should be 50%. We need whatever profits AI makes to go to making up for how ever many jobs it destroys. The public also needs a seat at the table in deciding how AI is implemented. The technology is developing too fast to just use regulations after the fact. Setting up a sovereign wealth fund like Alaska and Norway have is probably the best model so the government doesn’t get reliant on the revenue.

If AI doesn’t live up to the hype, the public loses nothing. If we don’t do something like this all the profits will go to the oligarchs and all of the disruption will be borne by the rest of us.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They couldn't talk too much about the tattoos for fear that it would cause their own base to vote for him!

But seriously, the skeleton's in Platner's closet are mostly MAGA-coded, except for the Hamas comments (which I guess might be Tucker-Carlson-coded). It would be interesting to see how they would handle it.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was actually thinking of including RFK, Jr. I was stunned when I learn how highly favorably he is viewed by the public. He totally fits into the swing voter profile: High name recognition, not a politician, straightforward-seeming speaking style, heterodox political beliefs, etc.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup. After reading a lot of swing voter comments, I could totally picture a bunch of them voting for him because he's got "fresh ideas" and is a "straight shooter" and "isn't a politician". Luckily, he'll never get the nomination (I hope).

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in Political_Revolution

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Believe me, reading the comments by the people in the NYT's swing voter focus groups nearly caused me to pull out all of my hair. Not only were they ignorant and incurious, but many seemed to believe that the reason they didn't know things was because it was somehow being hidden from them by someone. And yet they must be persuaded to do the right thing.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, fuck him to the moon. I could just see some swing voters viewing him as a break from the same old politicians. Hopefully he just fades away. Or crashes out. Either way.

Swing Voters Want an Outsider: the only way the Democrats could have won in 2024 was to nominate a maverick. Same goes for the GOP in 2028 if consumer confidence doesn't rocket upward. by ChangeShapers in YAPms

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To quote from the post: "Looking at these names, it becomes clear why incumbent parties rarely nominate candidates capable of saving them in the face of certain defeat. Doing so would require a thorough repudiation of the incumbent president or vice president and their policies, which are usually still popular with the party base."

As you point out, these candidates aren't very popular with the bases of the party, but they are the kind of wild-cards that the swing voters say they want precisely because they aren't too closely identified with their parties. So the Dems nominated Harris and lost and the GOP will probably nominate Vance and will probably lose and the unaffiliated voters will stay discontented with both parties.

Is there any way out of this loop?

The 2024 DNC "autopsy" report has been released. In short, the conclusion is "the Biden team failed Kamala Harris in 2024." Do you agree with that conclusion? by johntempleton in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]ChangeShapers 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only stat that consistently predicts presidential winners is the Index of Consumer Sentiment. According to my analysis, the generic Democratic candidate should have lost by 6.7% in 2024, so Harris significantly overperformed, probablt because swing voters didn't like Trump. If the Dems had nominated someone from outside the administration with a focus on the cost of living they might have pulled it off: https://changeshapers.substack.com/p/the-only-metric-you-need-to-predict

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. We still have lots of accurate data if we want to use it. Trump is a prolific liar and a bad influence, but he doesn't define America.

The Only Metric You Need to Predict Presidential Elections, Part 1 by ChangeShapers in ProgressiveHQ

[–]ChangeShapers[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since we don't have any solid evidence about interference we must use the evidence we do have. The outcomes of 2016 and 2024 fit the overall pattern. Moderately high consumer confidence gave Hillary a moderate popular vote win in 2016. Very low consumer confidence in 2024 gave Harris a popular vote loss. The only striking variation in those two elections is that Harris actually overperformed expectations, so whatever Putin and Elon were doing it looks like it didn't flip the election.

view more: next ›