Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Part of my summation would have been “hey the JD Vance you heard tonight is nothing like the JD Vance that has been on the campaign trail and his diametrically opposed to the top of his ticket. I could work with the JD Vance that showed up tonight, but I’m sorry, acting for two hours like a normal centrist politician will not cover over the past 3 years of his public speeches, or the craziness of the past 3 months on the campaign trail, or the past 8 years of Donald Trumps insanity, which he himself labeled a nightmare… at least when he was acting like the JD Vance we’ve seen most of this evening“

I'm not voting for the Trump/Vance ticket because of Trump.   I am apparently more willing than you guys to believe the Vance we saw Tuesday is a reasonably genuine Vance.  Recall that I voted for Trump in '16 on the assumption he would moderate his demeanor if elected.  I'll admit it takes a lot for someone to convince me that they are socially or politically irredeemable.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, that nonsense was created by Vance in the 1st place.  It should have been the top of the ticket doing the cringing when Vance spouted that BS. Unfortunately, the top of the ticket is Trump.

Upon further review, I think you are right on this point.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Did you happen to read the opinion piece from the left winger I posted?"

I reviewed your link. Now you can review mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMbvpVpAT4E

Well, what did you think of her opinion?  I am looking for your input!  I thought the writer's view was a gross overreaction.  Jill Filipovic wrote pretty much the same thing later in the day.  That Walz lost the debate because he did not expose Vance as the creep she believes he is.  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/10/02/walz_failed_to_reveal_the_real_vance_during_debate_632746.html

I think this is an odd take, but you (or Brian or Russ) might see it differently.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It seems Nate Silver agrees with the opinions of the article's you've posted:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4912610-nate-silver-walz-sanewashing-vance-debate/

Looks like they all feel about the same in that Waltz should have been more aggressive in attacking Vance by using "JD"s words and antics against him. 
"JD" certainly deserves the latter.

I also think the Harris campaign needs to highlight Trump/"JD"s current lies that they supported Obamacare all along...

I read Silver every day and am a paid subscriber.  He brought up sanewashing in his second and final footnote of yesterday's contribution suggesting he feels that Walz could have been more aggressive as a matter of tactics.  It was a footnote, not his main point.

Interestingly, the Hill twisted what Silver actually said to match the Hill's agenda.  In other words the Hill discarded the entirety of Silver's article to extract a minor point from a footnote.  This is a really good example of why you should never trust what one author says about the writing of another person.  

Here is the entire Silver piece quoted by the Hill, hopefully not behind a paywall for you:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/is-tim-walz-bringing-vibes-to-a-knife

Silver's point is primarily that the Republicans have a lot of ammunition - enough to trounce Harris/Walz if they were not running Trump/Vance.  I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion.  This race would not be close if the Rs were not running Trump/Vance.   See the three graphs and discussion in the middle of Silver's piece.  

By the way, even if Silver thinks Walz could have been more aggressive, he certainly does not appear to agree with the original author or Fillipovic.  Those writers argue that Walz lost the debate entirely, because he failed to expose Vance as the creep he allegedly is.  Silver argues early on in his article that the debate was probably a tie and more importantly that it does not matter.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It seems Nate Silver agrees with the opinions of the article's you've posted:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4912610-nate-silver-walz-sanewashing-vance-debate/

Looks like they all feel about the same in that Waltz should have been more aggressive in attacking Vance by using "JD"s words and antics against him. 
"JD" certainly deserves the latter.

I also think the Harris campaign needs to highlight Trump/"JD"s current lies that they supported Obamacare all along...

The author of the Hill piece is an idiot by the way.  They have a significant and easily spotted fallacy in the first sentence.  Silver is not and never has been a pollster.  He is a probabilistic statistician (and professional gambler).  Maybe that was a typo, but the false and very poorly constructed  "appeal to authority" that the Hill writer engages in is not defensible.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Silver is not and never has been a pollster."

He's evidently described as such by the media, "Per the pollster's forecast, Harris has a 56.7 percent chance of winning the necessary 270 electoral votes in November, while Trump trails with 43.1 percent."

https://www.newsweek.com/nate-silvers-swing-state-forecast-shows-new-movement-1963629


BTW: I still think Trump will prevail, you?

Hi Rod:

Yesterday, I would have agreed.  But today the Biden/Harris administration has apparently resolved the longshoreman strike.  This is a big deal for Harris.  A major supply chain disruption peaking around election day would have been bad.  So today I think Harris wins.

Here is something I find fascinating.  Silver ran his model 70,000 times earlier this week to quantify the most probable outcomes.  As you know the overall is Harris winning the EC 56% of the time and Trump 44% of the time which is nearly a toss-up.  Silver's model applies possible polling errors, such as one candidate being under polled or certain demographics being under polled and so on.  There are always some polling errors, often 2-3%.  Also, the swing states can be correlated error wise, this is what happened in 2016 when Trump was under-polled across the board and everyone predicted that Clinton would win.  The polls were not off by that much, but they were all off in the same direction.

Anyway, the most likely scenarios in Silver's recent 70,000 run were: (A) Harris sweeps all 7 of the swing states, and (B) Trump sweeps all 7 of the swing states.  Together those two outcomes accounted for 40% of all results.   This is another way of saying that the polling is entirely within the margin of error, plus observing that the errors are often correlated.

Everyone knows Trump was under-polled in '16 and '20.  If this is happening again, Trump wins for sure.  On the other hand, the better pollsters are certainly trying to fix whatever caused Trump to under-poll in '16 and '20.  If they over-correct, Harris wins easily.   If they are right this time though, and several swing states are within 1% on election day, look for chaos and allegations (i.e. Russia, voting machines) on both sides and no final determination for weeks.   

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I think you're a little fixated on media bias. Sure, it exists. Don't listen to it.  Listen to what these candidates actually say.  Vance claims Haitians are eating pets, and then doubles down on it after it's proven to be total fiction.

Unfit, just like his orange boss.

Hi Brian and Russ:

I hope you are still around this week, I am sorry to reply late.  I've actually been thinking about your comments a lot.  I don't think I'm overly fixated on media bias, because even though I might listen to a candidate's actual words, I listen to (or more typically) read the words, selected and reported by a media outlet.   Bias is pervasive.

In other words, I follow the news but I never attend rallies, or watch an entire rally start to finish to pick up the context.  Do you?  I'm guessing you do not.   

It is indisputable that any politician says stupid things.  It is also indisputable that they tell politically expedient lies.   All of them do it, but some more than others.  Finally it is indisputable that our media is polarized and they choose what to report.  Obviously the words and phrases reported from a Trump rally by MSNBC are going to be different than the words and phrases reported by Fox.  Sometimes context is dishonestly hidden.  Like with Trump's "bloodbath" comment.

I did watch the entire VP debate, and think Vance presented himself reasonably well.  Not well enough to win Trump my vote in this election but well enough for me to think he is probably a decent guy at least in part, and not a small minded, misogynistic, mean spirited little man.  I know that he was on his best behavior of course, and it is possible that it was all an act and that Vance is evil to the core of his soul.  Based upon his resume, and what I saw in the debate, I still think this is unlikely.  J

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Today we spent a couple of hours off the shores of Iwa Jima. This trip has been filled with other ports associated with WWII including Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dutch Harbor, and we’ll cruise past Midway Island in six days. We’ll be in Honolulu on the 16th for two days and I plan on visiting Pearl Harbor and the Arizona Memorial. 

My Dad was in the Navy during WWII, but as he was the youngest and only boy with 9 older sisters they kept him stateside in San Francisco where he did Navy payroll.

Incredible what those young 18 and 19 year old men did to fight and win the war in both the Pacific and in Europe. It’s been an amazing journey to honor the soldiers, on both sides who fought the war in the Pacific. I will never forget this trip or the brave men who fought for the freedoms we sometimes take for granted. The greatest generation indeed. My picture files are too large to post. I’ll add a few when I get home and can downsize some of them.

Hi Jim, sound like great ports of call!  I am glad you are having and good and meaningful trip.  Very cool.   I've wondered now and then whether the night sky is spectacular on a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean?   Or do they have too many lights?  I've never been on a cruise.

This is the best time for observing in Colorado.   Had a great visual day on Saturday with my younger son and Linda - we observed all the summer spectacles as the Milky Way is still overhead, M13, M17, many others, plus the more autumn-like M31, Double Cluster and Saturn.   Showed Linda and son Albireo for the first time and they loved the yellow/blue contrast.  Saturn was as good as it gets in Colorado.  Yesterday and today I was out in the observatory taking images.  The sun in Ha from yesterday is attached.  An extreme rough draft of Saturn from tonight is next...it is getting late!  J

Originally Posted by James Brown

Sounds like great ports of call! 

Saturn - rough draft

Originally Posted by James Brown

Saturn - rough draft

Hope you don't mind, but this one is pretty cool.   This hobby will keep you up all night, at the eyepiece, the camera, or the computer... one way or the other.   I love talking politics, but you know, there is a lot more out there to talk about!