Okay I’m here ready to eat my hat. I commented last time saying there’s no way he drops out so why even write about the possibility, and now it sure seems feasible.
That’s the truly baffling part. At some point ALL skeletons come out of the closet in a political campaign. What the heck, did he not think this far ahead or what? Most allegations at this level are not able to be sidestepped, DJT being the exception.
I take serious umbrage with associating hasan piker with the left, and I’m left af, but that guy is just the left’s version of tucker Carlson. A total nut job troll.
Solid post besides that. Let’s get rid of the guy already
Kudos to Nate Silver, with one little ding. His June 10 column: no reason to expect the scandals to end with sexting, a campaign behaving in untrustworthy ways, the observation that threatening former staffers is what you do when there's something worse in the vault. His "vet the hell out of us" test was exactly the right one, and Platner's campaign flunked it in four weeks. That's genuine analytical work, on the record, before the fact.
But I'd gently note that the June column's headline read "toss-up, or maybe still tilts Platner," and its arithmetic walked through how a D+14 state and a -17 favorability opponent gave Platner room to bleed and still win. The skepticism was in the prose; the implied trade was buy an out-of-the-money put, not sell short.
This column recapitulates the thoughtful analysis without mentioning the cautious conclusion.
In a comment on the June column, I argued scandal tolerance isn't linear — that after supporters have rationalized three scandals the fourth one can flip them to impassioned repudiation. I cited Weinstein, Cosby, Madoff, Enron: years of rationalized warnings, then unraveling in weeks, with former defenders becoming the loudest accusers.
The dam broke on schedule, so I'm tempted to take a bow. But honesty compels half credit at most. My model predicted collapse from one more marginal scandal — the straw that breaks the rationalization. What actually arrived was a categorically graver allegation. Even a linear response model predicts big effects from big causes.
What I'll claim is the character of the break. Under proportional updating, you'd expect Platner's defenders to demand due process on the most serious charge yet. Instead: same-day "curtains" from Hasan Piker, The Nation calling for replacement within hours, prediction markets at 3 percent before Platner had decided anything — and Democrats' odds of holding the seat improving on the news.
That's not a repricing; that's a liquidity event. The market had been holding Platner as an underwater position for weeks, and the allegation was the margin call. The speed and totality of the abandonment is the signature of my mechanism, even if the triggering event was severe enough that the mechanism wasn't necessary.
Nate Silver gets credit for the analysis, minus a small deduction for the retroactive narrative arc. I get credit for the mechanism, minus a large deduction for the fact that a dumber model predicts the same outcome. And Platner gets no deduction at all, because he started from zero.
So you have joined the smear campaign ? Seams to me that Reps can do just about anything and receive a walk. Susan Collins gets lied to again and again and still votes for unqualified nominees and she gets a pass? IMO the charges are unverified and Platner should at least get the same consideration as people such as Ken Paxton
Ken Paxton is a terrible candidate who’s polling well below the partisan lean of Texas. The GOP would almost certainly be better off if they ditched Paxton. The democrats being willing to ditch a bad candidate prior to him becoming an electoral liability is a good thing for them.
Portraying Nate as a member of a "smear camapaign" is inflammatory language that disregards his analytical background and commitment to speaking his mind. You can disagree with him (I do often, and sort of now as well), but framing him as part of a "smear campaign" is disingenuous at best.
Also, the strong pivot to "whataboutisms" is famously unhelpful and counter to constructive discourse. This isn't about Susan Collins or Donald Trump. It's about setting a personal standard for what you expect in your own representatives. Again, I'm not agreeing with Nate's portrayal of Platner. But defending any politician with "yeah but the other guy is worse!", especially when there are still alternatives available is unhelpful and inflammatory. And it is the very mindset that has created this race-to-the-bottom-of-shittiness in personal character that we see in politics today.
Susan Collins doesn’t get a pass, not from me, not from anyone I respect, and definitely not from history. But we have a chance here to hold ourselves to higher standards than the people we claim to be morally superior too - which at this point means literally any standard - and Graham Platner has utterly failed to rise to the moment time and time again with regards to taking accountability to his past. Let’s not be the GOP and continue to latch onto a crap candidate and, at best, not a great person just because he hates the same people we do.
Thrilled for the country that he’s out of the race. Nazi tattoos should be nowhere near the levers of power.
Okay I’m here ready to eat my hat. I commented last time saying there’s no way he drops out so why even write about the possibility, and now it sure seems feasible.
My bad, sir. I missed lunch.
A very big, very strong lunch. Many people are saying they'd never seen a lunch like that before. And Dan missed it. Very sad.
As he knew this allegation was out there, going this far was a good sign of poor judgment. Selfishness is a problem with many political figures.
Altogether he seems like a total dumbass.
That’s the truly baffling part. At some point ALL skeletons come out of the closet in a political campaign. What the heck, did he not think this far ahead or what? Most allegations at this level are not able to be sidestepped, DJT being the exception.
He’s clearly a narcissist.
He's a narcissist AND a total dumbass!
Reminds me of a classic SNL bit:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/03lLPUYkpYM
I take serious umbrage with associating hasan piker with the left, and I’m left af, but that guy is just the left’s version of tucker Carlson. A total nut job troll.
Solid post besides that. Let’s get rid of the guy already
Kudos to Nate Silver, with one little ding. His June 10 column: no reason to expect the scandals to end with sexting, a campaign behaving in untrustworthy ways, the observation that threatening former staffers is what you do when there's something worse in the vault. His "vet the hell out of us" test was exactly the right one, and Platner's campaign flunked it in four weeks. That's genuine analytical work, on the record, before the fact.
But I'd gently note that the June column's headline read "toss-up, or maybe still tilts Platner," and its arithmetic walked through how a D+14 state and a -17 favorability opponent gave Platner room to bleed and still win. The skepticism was in the prose; the implied trade was buy an out-of-the-money put, not sell short.
This column recapitulates the thoughtful analysis without mentioning the cautious conclusion.
In a comment on the June column, I argued scandal tolerance isn't linear — that after supporters have rationalized three scandals the fourth one can flip them to impassioned repudiation. I cited Weinstein, Cosby, Madoff, Enron: years of rationalized warnings, then unraveling in weeks, with former defenders becoming the loudest accusers.
The dam broke on schedule, so I'm tempted to take a bow. But honesty compels half credit at most. My model predicted collapse from one more marginal scandal — the straw that breaks the rationalization. What actually arrived was a categorically graver allegation. Even a linear response model predicts big effects from big causes.
What I'll claim is the character of the break. Under proportional updating, you'd expect Platner's defenders to demand due process on the most serious charge yet. Instead: same-day "curtains" from Hasan Piker, The Nation calling for replacement within hours, prediction markets at 3 percent before Platner had decided anything — and Democrats' odds of holding the seat improving on the news.
That's not a repricing; that's a liquidity event. The market had been holding Platner as an underwater position for weeks, and the allegation was the margin call. The speed and totality of the abandonment is the signature of my mechanism, even if the triggering event was severe enough that the mechanism wasn't necessary.
Nate Silver gets credit for the analysis, minus a small deduction for the retroactive narrative arc. I get credit for the mechanism, minus a large deduction for the fact that a dumber model predicts the same outcome. And Platner gets no deduction at all, because he started from zero.
I'm just surprised it came out before July 13th.
This a Dem-aligned oppo dump. The same group that took our Swalwell helped the accuser come forward.
Just because it's nasty doesn't make it untrue, right? Sorry for the... Double or triple negative in there but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.
I definitely think it’s true.
Is Golden an option?
I'd just like to note how cursed it is that Hasan Piker is now a "prominent voice on the left"
Guess it's another case of "guilty until proven innocent".
So you have joined the smear campaign ? Seams to me that Reps can do just about anything and receive a walk. Susan Collins gets lied to again and again and still votes for unqualified nominees and she gets a pass? IMO the charges are unverified and Platner should at least get the same consideration as people such as Ken Paxton
Ken Paxton is a terrible candidate who’s polling well below the partisan lean of Texas. The GOP would almost certainly be better off if they ditched Paxton. The democrats being willing to ditch a bad candidate prior to him becoming an electoral liability is a good thing for them.
Portraying Nate as a member of a "smear camapaign" is inflammatory language that disregards his analytical background and commitment to speaking his mind. You can disagree with him (I do often, and sort of now as well), but framing him as part of a "smear campaign" is disingenuous at best.
Also, the strong pivot to "whataboutisms" is famously unhelpful and counter to constructive discourse. This isn't about Susan Collins or Donald Trump. It's about setting a personal standard for what you expect in your own representatives. Again, I'm not agreeing with Nate's portrayal of Platner. But defending any politician with "yeah but the other guy is worse!", especially when there are still alternatives available is unhelpful and inflammatory. And it is the very mindset that has created this race-to-the-bottom-of-shittiness in personal character that we see in politics today.
So close--if only you had read the entire article you're commenting under. This isn't a courtroom.
Susan Collins doesn’t get a pass, not from me, not from anyone I respect, and definitely not from history. But we have a chance here to hold ourselves to higher standards than the people we claim to be morally superior too - which at this point means literally any standard - and Graham Platner has utterly failed to rise to the moment time and time again with regards to taking accountability to his past. Let’s not be the GOP and continue to latch onto a crap candidate and, at best, not a great person just because he hates the same people we do.
Donald J. Trump has always been a failure, and last week was the same failure by the self-proclaimed Donald Trump, the smartest person on
Earth.https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQhVNQfGpbfpsfMTJsJHPwGlHJF
Silver, solid take.
Now let’s watch as the Democratic
Party poobahs replace him with. Chuck Schumer wanna be.