How is it a good time to be conservative when there is basically no conservative party left in the US? The MAGA coalition is many things, but you can't reasonably call a platform that wants to impose massive tariffs conservative. Mitt Romney might be the last high profile conservative still left in a high profile elected office, because the rest of them resigned or were primaried for not bending the knee to a populist wannabe dictator.
You seem to be mistaking conservatism in general for a peculiar strand known as neoconservatism that has dominated Republican politics for quite a while until Trump.
Conservatism is an ideology founded by the likes of Burke and Hume, and it holds that laws, cultural norms, etc. should not be discarded for what Jefferson would call "light and transient causes".
It rose in opposition to rationalism. Rationalism held that humans, using reason and evidence, would continue to (virtually endlessly) improve their government and society.
Conservatism held that the reasoning of humans was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in laws, cultural norms, ceremonies, etc. that could not necessarily be readily understood by humans. And so, while it is in theory ok to change these laws, cultural norms, ceremonies, etc... it should be done with caution, and with the understanding that we may not necessarily understand the impact of the undoing.
Now here's the problem: today, you will find plenty of intelligent people on the American political right who ask this question (or worse still, who don't even appear to consider the question at all):
"Why is it such a big deal that Trump didn't concede the 2020 election?"
And it is people on the American political left, who are having to explain to the American political right, why it is that a norm as old as conceding an election loss is important.
If you asked me just 10 years ago if it were possible so many Americans would be confused about this sort of thing in the year 2024, I would've said no. But I would've added that the plain disrespect of some leftist activists for our norms wasn't a good sign, and that the Democratic Party (not the Republican Party) may yet be susceptible to such dangers.
That this happened to the Republican Party is so much worse. The defense of a person such as Trump is a declaration of ideological bankruptcy. The conservatism is gone.
I would argue that the not conceding phenomenon started with Democrats in 2000 and then repeated with their losses in 2004 and 2016. Conceding, but then complaining for years that you didn’t really lose fairly is just as much a violation of norms as Trump not conceding. You get no norm complying points for saying “I concede” and then turn around and say that your opponent is an “illegitimate president”. Trump’s behavior is merely the expected evolution of a couple decades of declining norms.
In 2000, Gore had a solid legal basis for his appeals. And when he lost, and exhausted legal avenues, he conceded. Gore didn't do anything wrong here. Bringing up 2000 is pure chaff.
In 2016, Clinton conceded publicly within 24 hours, called Trump personally to concede, and then attended Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
And all of this was indefensible, even if you believe (as I do... the evidence is overwhelming) that Russia interfered in our election, and that voter suppression is real. Because it is indefensible, I criticized it at the time, and everyone should've criticized it.
But this is not even close to the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
And none of this even touches any of his (in)actions on January 6th.
Yes, if norm-complying "points" are a thing, what Trump did was much, much worse. And if you believe that this is all just "expected evolution", I want you to tell me that you believe this:
"Kamala Harris, if she loses, and exhausts any challenges in court, will dispute the results of the election, call on her supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and call on Joe Biden to use his power to prevent it."
Now if you're struggling on this one, I'll give you hints here: unlike Trump, Harris and Biden have repeatedly committed to a peaceful transfer of power, and they have not made claims that if they lose, it is the result of a stolen election. That's strange, isn't it? Donald Trump did all of that stuff in 2020 and 2021... where is the "expected evolution"? Surely they should've done all of that, and then come up with something worse.
Unless you are... very partisan, you know quite well that Harris will concede, and she will preside over the certification vote as Vice President herself to certify Trump's win, just as Mike Pence did for Joe Biden's.
There is not a serious comparison between the two sides on this issue. Actually, there is not a serious comparison between Trump and any other major political figure on either side on this issue. Pence, Haley, McConnell, Schumer, Biden, Harris... vs Trump. These, as far this issue is concerned, are the two sides. And unfortunately for all of us, so many "conservatives" continue to not merely defend the latter, but to actually choose the latter to run the country. Please stop doing this.
You know how Democrats always say there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud? There is also no evidence of widespread voter suppression. That BS was also put forth by Democrats in 2004 for Ohio. And being an apologist for Clinton based on voter suppression in 2016 is complete nonsense. Show me the evidence. It doesn’t exist. And Joe Biden’s Jim Crow 2.0 nonsense for Georgia was repugnant and was shown to be false via a University of Georgia post-election poll. And now Rep. Jim Clyburn is reviving Jim Crow 2.0 for this election. This is not a defense of Trump. I can’t predict what Kamala Harris will do, but I do know that she had no problem throwing Biden under the “bus” for political points in the past.
Who was the law professor arguing for faithless electors when Trump was elected the first time? I don’t recall Democratic hyperventilation about the end of democracy on that occasion.
Who indeed? No one remembers, because it had no effect on anything. Some professor calling for something is not the same as the losing candidate acting on it, for months, illegally, and finally sending a Jan 6 mob to do the dirty work when the electors scheme fails.
Show me the time where the losing Democratic nominee sent a mob of Antifa thousands to attack the Capitol in order to stop the counting of electoral votes.
If you're in a high-net-worth household with a big stock portfolio and a lot of cash savings in the bank earning decent interest rates with minimal debt at low fixed rates, yes, the economy is doing great.
If you're living paycheck to paycheck with a bunch of credit card debt at variable interest rates, not so much.
A progressive might ask one to check their privilege.
Why do we do this every 4 years, a bunch of arguing over whether the economy is 'good.' Your opinions will flip anyway if Trump wins (suddenly Trump supporters who said the economy is shit now will say its great by March, and vice versa), so can't you just save us all the brain cells and wait to have these arguments until after (if) Trump wins, when you'll all magically be arguing the opposite point of view.
This uses a different inflation metric for each of the underlying buckets. PCE for after tax earnings, CPI-W for hourly, CPI-U for weekly. I get the intention, but the differences between PCE and CPI-W/U skew the real wage growth numbers for each class of worker and hits hourly/weekly workers with higher inflation vs. after tax workers for example.
It documents the argument, which is better than the people echoing Fox News do.
If Trump gets a pass on 2020, pretending Covid issues vanished in Jan 2021 is disingenuous.
Depending on where you pick the bottom of the Covid dominated impact on the economy and stats, there is a solid argument that people are simply far better off.
The 2019 baselined real wage gains use the broadest definition from BLS.
Take politics out of it. The reason polling shows economic pain is because workers saw real wage growth of 9.4% from 16-19 (or 6.8% including covid (ie 16-q1 21) vs 2.24% from 21-24. Real wages were negative through q1 24. To discount the impact of inflation is quite partisan. The “opinions are disconnected from economic reality” narrative also reflects partisan bias. Idk who will win, there are many other problems ppl care about, and none of this may matter, but we should look at data with clarity.
Imagine rooting for Trump Tarriffs and immigration raids which will make prices SKYROCKET for the poor, and claiming he's the one who will help paycheck to paycheck folks.
And the same percentage believes that the inflation rate is increasing and the sick market has been flat or declining in the past year. It’s a miracle the US has done so well.
The economy was doing stellar between 2017-2019, economists can be shills too, like Paul Krugman who predicted a recession in 2016 if trump were to win.
The economy has been in a long expansionary cycle from 2008 all the way until now, there have been policies by both republicans and democrats since then that have both helped/hurt that growth. The only people who see it any other way are hardcore partisans.
Massive deficit spending with record low interest rates can be amazing.
Krugman has explained his reasoning and what happened that made it not apply.
The only people who call him a shill are hardcore partisans.
TL;DR edit : Srivikram agrees with me below that Trump's economic performance was nothing particularly exceptional, and that it is really about feelings rather than data.
Except he is a shill; it's been consistently evident that his actual economic views aligned more left wing than Clinton's but he shilled for Clinton and put attack pieces on Bernie during the entire primary season.
And in response to your comment about massive spending with low interest rates; maybe a look at a graph of the federal funds rate during the Obama presidency?
Or the deficit year by year during Obama's second term versus trump's term excluding the covid year.
Not a uniquely trump thing. And if you really think all of that was a interest rate and spending fuelled orgy I don't think you have much of an explanation for how that growth took place in a much less inflationary environment. Unless you're argument is that trump inherited Obama's amazing economy!
Last I recall, liberals were making plenty of excuses about how Obama was close to full employment and that a Trump presidency would lead to significant inflation.
This is no less partisan behavior than conservative idiots who are saying that an economy with super low unemployment and high growth year after year is the "worst economy" in decades, or pretending that Trumps last year had nothing to do with the record increase in inflation.
The deficits were comparable to Obamas second term, shows me you didn't look the numbers up. If you want to talk about 2020, we can talk about the deficits in Obama's first term, and I'm not disingenuous enough to compare recession spending to normal years
Every other civilized country outside of Europe (which is currently being overrun by migrant thugs and criminals) deports people who overstay or enter illegally. That's not a fascist, racist, or uniquely cruel policy
The Dems kept most of trump's tariffs btw, what do you have to say about that?
2: what he's talking about is orders of magnitude more of both tariffs and deportations and he's been clear that the deportations aren't limited to people in the country illegally
Name literally one instance where he said he would deport people here legally. Again, you're ignoring the fact Dems kept the tariffs.
Btw I generally do not support tariffs, but much of the stuff trump has said about trade not being equal is true. Plenty of countries still employ protectionist policies while america lets imports come in freely.
And on the other hand wildly unsustainable current account deficits can put a countrys financial system in a precarious position in moments of shock, several economists have broached the subject, including JM Keynes (both parties rely heavily on Keynesian economics today when it comes to recessions), who proposed an international clearing union to help even out trade imbalances. Keynes at one point even suggested tariffs are a logical part of a recovery plan in addition to reducing interest rates (which also devalues currency and increases exports) since they would boost net exports and increase aggregate demand.
This isn't without argument within the field of economists but this is to give you an idea that many topics that lay people considered totally settled by experts are often up for debate in academic circles
Why does it matter that they left the last round of tarrifs in place? I'm ignoring it because it seems irrelevant to me. Would what trump is proposing now somehow be better or worse if they had removed them?
But Biden opened the border on his first day in office and did nothing for three and a half as millions poured in. He only started to try to stop when he saw it was unpopular with even Democrats. There’s a housing shortage in many cities now.
Lmao - it amazes me how many people are here reading Nate’s professional opinion that the election is a toss up when they are already know who’s going to win. My gut tells me it will be Kamala - but we could also have to suffer through another 4 or 10 years of Donald.
In a 2022 speech at the Heritage Foundation—the same foundation tied to the authors of “2025”—Trump denies global warming, dismisses it as a “hoax,” and absurdly claims that sea level rise is only "1/100th of an inch" over 300 years. Such statements show a flagrant disregard for the increasing threat posed by climate change, particularly as recent hurricanes, intensified by warming oceans, wreak havoc on American communities.
Tidal gauges in the San Francisco Bay Area have tracked sea level rise since the 1850s, showing an increase of approximately 8 inches. The impact is undeniable: substantial funding is being allocated to protect San Francisco International Airport, while properties near Stinson Beach have suffered from unprecedented storms. Before retirement, I jogged along the Bay and have seen firsthand the damage climate change has wrought.
The tidal gauge record is clear: sea level rise is accelerating.
In the same 2022 speech, Trump references his “close” relationship with Heritage Foundation leadership multiple times, praising their policy work. Yet, despite these ties, the Heritage Foundation’s CEO recently claimed Trump had no involvement with “2025”—a strange denial, considering the foundation's influential role in shaping conservative policy since the Reagan administration.
I'm currently living several 100 miles closer to the border than you, it's not at all fictional, the great replacement theory is very much real, and it will backfire spectacularly once democrats realize that culturally conservative hispanics will not vote for them at the numbers they want them to. I suppose the excess of right wing strongmen dominating throughout south and central America could have clued them in but what more can you expect from a group of people who think all people of the same race think the same?
What policies from the left are you talking about? Kamala’s campaign couldn’t be more moderate. It’s the most right wing Democratic Party platform since 2004.
I think Nate might be overthinking things on the turnout. Higher turnout has always favored Democrats, and I don't think there's any reason to suspect that's different this time, particularly when polling data is showing abortion as one of the most motivating issues this cycle. I'm betting that higher turnout, combined with Gallup's higher enthusiasm among Democrats, is strong evidence that we might be looking at a polling error that is favoring Trump. Kamala may be doing far better than expected.
I'm usually not one of the "Nate's a pundit now" people, but he's being extremely pundit-y lately when it comes to this.
Political depolarization is definitely a thing, but one of the reasons Democrats tended to do better in high-turnout elections was not just about voting demographics, but because it represented greater political engagement generally. I don't mean to make sweeping characterizations about what's "correct," but for the last 50 years polls taken among all people (*not voters*) have indicated higher support for Democratic policy agendas, and Silver himself has said that the more people know and hear about Trump, the less they like him, so I don't know if marginal racial re-alignment (Harris is still gonna lose white people) is strong enough to counter everything else we know about turnout.
And Nate is continuing to set the stage for a "shoulda picked Shapiro" dance should Harris lose, going on about it at length on his podcast under the non-falsifiable assumption that Walz had exactly zero positive impact and that Shapiro would have had net positive impact in places outside of PA (on Dem enthusiasm in general, or, depressing as it is to speculate, turnout in Michigan specifically). Super-pundit-y stuff there in particular.
I think there's just something crazy-making about having to spin your wheels every day saying "it's a tie, it's a coin toss, it's a tie, it's a coin toss" when the people (who are now your direct customers because that's the creator economy hellscape we live in how) demand more from you. To give Silver some grace, it must be irresistible to enrage in punditry when you've run out of actual insights to give people.
Especially when people keep asking "How does XYZ thing affect the model???" and the answer invariably is, "It doesn't, and you shouldn't put much stock in it because the data on XYZ being predictive is weak at best."
Nate is not out alone on some desert island when he says the obvious. There are reporters and pundits with decades of experience saying the same thing about Shapiro. One pollster even did a PA poll where they asked both Harris/Walz and Harris/Shapiro against Trump/Vance and she was ahead in the poll only with Shapiro. If Trump wins PA, he has about a 90% chance of winning the election. The argument that Harris choosing Shapiro would have suppressed turnout in Michigan or would have cost her even more Union voters was always an absurd argument.
Honestly I think Kamala didn’t pick Shapiro for exactly the reason she should have and not just because of PA.
Kamala knew she had to pick a white male to balance the ticket and then proceeded to pick the least masculine male of the available options. She obviously didn’t gel with Shapiro and she did with Waltz but if she was smart she would have realised that her gelling with someone was a contraindication of the person being convincing to the swing voters that Kamala needed to win the election.
TL,DR - Kamala picked Walz because he is the liberal woman’s idea of what a man should be.
It relies on a world where the Vice President of the United States is intimidated by masculinity. Which is on its face just dumb.
It also thinks we live in a world where a rural hunter and high school football coach who fixes cars was somehow "the least masculine option." Walz is an almost comically masculine role model stereotype, which is part of why he is popular.
The campaign started selling camo hats with his name on it. "Least masculine?" What a joke.
Oh, it certainly doesn't. It's a stereotype. That's was my point. Walz is a stereotype of a masculine role model, and the campaign leaned into that from day one.
I agree with you. It is called Tim Kaine Syndrome and only infects Democratic female presidential candidates. This disease causes poll anxiety, ballot fatigue, and election loss.
Like Nate, you are forgetting about the 2-3 weeks of Walz-mania that swept the nation after she picked him.
There was nothing at all like that with Tim Kaine, or any other VP pick in modern history for that matter.
And while Tim Kaine was absolutely a vanilla wafer choice, we need to stop remembering Hillary Clinton's campaign as a total disaster. She should have campaigned more in Wisconsin, yes, but she got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Not all sample sizes for all polls are small. What's more if it's random error then aggregating across all polls shouldn't show a meaningful migration of minority voters to Trump. That is not the conclusion of professional pollsters and analysts.
As for the white collar vote, reread what I wrote. Minority voters are disproportionately blue collar and are thus less likely to vote than whites.
You're correct, I misread your point about white collar workers.
However, my other point still stands: Increased minority turnout only helps Trump if he's winning more than 50% of their vote. Nobody, including "professional voters and analysts," thinks that's the case.
Why do you keep posting an almost 7 month old article as proof? Biggest worry was that a 81 year old Biden would not attract those voters. Now Trump is the old white man.
Polling still shows Trump picking up minority voters compared to 2020 while Harris loses support. The idea that this isn't still an issue is incorrect.
Trump has to win over 50% of minority voters in order for increased minority turnout to benefit him (assuming Trump and Harris supporters vote at the same rate).
Polling is all over the place and you know it. I have seen polls where Harris is ahead and where she is behind of where Biden was in 2020. Way too many "garbage" polls like 2022. Who knows what is going to happen. This election is setting up to be a shit show because so many Trump supporters are already crying about losing before the votes have been counted. Post after post on social media threating violence if Trump does not win.
The latest survey of registered voters found Black men under 50 have decreased their likelihood to vote for Trump to 21%, down from 27% in August — and increased their likelihood to vote for Harris to 59%, up from 51% in August
Yeah I remember the Republican hopium of 2012 very well. Polls are wrong (except Rasmussen) because the polls are assuming the electorate will look like 2008 and after 4 years of seeing Obama in office, minority turnout will be closer to historical averages.
Swing and a miss!
The enthusiasm gap is 2024 looks about the same as 2020. I haven’t seen any reason to suspect anything other than a close election and I have personal anecdotes that definitely lead me to be skeptical of any narrative of a Trump blowout, but I’m also skeptical of a Harris blowout.
Define blowout? Is winning almost all the swing states a blowout? Cause that may be what happens if the correlated error was 1-2% which doesn’t seem like a blowout to me.
Looking at these polls—it’s a damn good time to be conservative.
People are really understanding how damaging the policies from the Left are, and they are literally voting out the bad and bringing in the good.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again—I’m really, really looking forward to these next 4 years with Trump. Man alive, I can’t wait.
Wish y’all the best this Halloween!
How is it a good time to be conservative when there is basically no conservative party left in the US? The MAGA coalition is many things, but you can't reasonably call a platform that wants to impose massive tariffs conservative. Mitt Romney might be the last high profile conservative still left in a high profile elected office, because the rest of them resigned or were primaried for not bending the knee to a populist wannabe dictator.
You seem to be mistaking conservatism in general for a peculiar strand known as neoconservatism that has dominated Republican politics for quite a while until Trump.
Historically, conservatives were protectionists.
Eh, you're not going back nearly far enough.
Conservatism is an ideology founded by the likes of Burke and Hume, and it holds that laws, cultural norms, etc. should not be discarded for what Jefferson would call "light and transient causes".
It rose in opposition to rationalism. Rationalism held that humans, using reason and evidence, would continue to (virtually endlessly) improve their government and society.
Conservatism held that the reasoning of humans was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in laws, cultural norms, ceremonies, etc. that could not necessarily be readily understood by humans. And so, while it is in theory ok to change these laws, cultural norms, ceremonies, etc... it should be done with caution, and with the understanding that we may not necessarily understand the impact of the undoing.
Now here's the problem: today, you will find plenty of intelligent people on the American political right who ask this question (or worse still, who don't even appear to consider the question at all):
"Why is it such a big deal that Trump didn't concede the 2020 election?"
And it is people on the American political left, who are having to explain to the American political right, why it is that a norm as old as conceding an election loss is important.
If you asked me just 10 years ago if it were possible so many Americans would be confused about this sort of thing in the year 2024, I would've said no. But I would've added that the plain disrespect of some leftist activists for our norms wasn't a good sign, and that the Democratic Party (not the Republican Party) may yet be susceptible to such dangers.
That this happened to the Republican Party is so much worse. The defense of a person such as Trump is a declaration of ideological bankruptcy. The conservatism is gone.
I would argue that the not conceding phenomenon started with Democrats in 2000 and then repeated with their losses in 2004 and 2016. Conceding, but then complaining for years that you didn’t really lose fairly is just as much a violation of norms as Trump not conceding. You get no norm complying points for saying “I concede” and then turn around and say that your opponent is an “illegitimate president”. Trump’s behavior is merely the expected evolution of a couple decades of declining norms.
And you'd lose the argument:
In 2000, Gore had a solid legal basis for his appeals. And when he lost, and exhausted legal avenues, he conceded. Gore didn't do anything wrong here. Bringing up 2000 is pure chaff.
In 2016, Clinton conceded publicly within 24 hours, called Trump personally to concede, and then attended Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
And all of this was indefensible, even if you believe (as I do... the evidence is overwhelming) that Russia interfered in our election, and that voter suppression is real. Because it is indefensible, I criticized it at the time, and everyone should've criticized it.
But this is not even close to the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
And none of this even touches any of his (in)actions on January 6th.
Yes, if norm-complying "points" are a thing, what Trump did was much, much worse. And if you believe that this is all just "expected evolution", I want you to tell me that you believe this:
"Kamala Harris, if she loses, and exhausts any challenges in court, will dispute the results of the election, call on her supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and call on Joe Biden to use his power to prevent it."
Now if you're struggling on this one, I'll give you hints here: unlike Trump, Harris and Biden have repeatedly committed to a peaceful transfer of power, and they have not made claims that if they lose, it is the result of a stolen election. That's strange, isn't it? Donald Trump did all of that stuff in 2020 and 2021... where is the "expected evolution"? Surely they should've done all of that, and then come up with something worse.
Unless you are... very partisan, you know quite well that Harris will concede, and she will preside over the certification vote as Vice President herself to certify Trump's win, just as Mike Pence did for Joe Biden's.
There is not a serious comparison between the two sides on this issue. Actually, there is not a serious comparison between Trump and any other major political figure on either side on this issue. Pence, Haley, McConnell, Schumer, Biden, Harris... vs Trump. These, as far this issue is concerned, are the two sides. And unfortunately for all of us, so many "conservatives" continue to not merely defend the latter, but to actually choose the latter to run the country. Please stop doing this.
You know how Democrats always say there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud? There is also no evidence of widespread voter suppression. That BS was also put forth by Democrats in 2004 for Ohio. And being an apologist for Clinton based on voter suppression in 2016 is complete nonsense. Show me the evidence. It doesn’t exist. And Joe Biden’s Jim Crow 2.0 nonsense for Georgia was repugnant and was shown to be false via a University of Georgia post-election poll. And now Rep. Jim Clyburn is reviving Jim Crow 2.0 for this election. This is not a defense of Trump. I can’t predict what Kamala Harris will do, but I do know that she had no problem throwing Biden under the “bus” for political points in the past.
Who was the law professor arguing for faithless electors when Trump was elected the first time? I don’t recall Democratic hyperventilation about the end of democracy on that occasion.
Who indeed? No one remembers, because it had no effect on anything. Some professor calling for something is not the same as the losing candidate acting on it, for months, illegally, and finally sending a Jan 6 mob to do the dirty work when the electors scheme fails.
Sauce: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-electors-lessig-232598
Show me the time where the losing Democratic nominee sent a mob of Antifa thousands to attack the Capitol in order to stop the counting of electoral votes.
This is special pleading.
All of those war mongers are celebrated by the Dems these days. Hope they keep them
Are you alive? Or are you another bot?
Present!
Except for the economy doing so well.
A big clue might be the number of Nobel prize winning economists who prefer Harris's plan.
The fact that Trump is in the game because poorly educated voters support him might be an insight about how little actual "understanding" is involved.
If you're in a high-net-worth household with a big stock portfolio and a lot of cash savings in the bank earning decent interest rates with minimal debt at low fixed rates, yes, the economy is doing great.
If you're living paycheck to paycheck with a bunch of credit card debt at variable interest rates, not so much.
A progressive might ask one to check their privilege.
Actual data
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/business/economy/inflation-wages-pay-salaries.html
You are wrong.
Why do we do this every 4 years, a bunch of arguing over whether the economy is 'good.' Your opinions will flip anyway if Trump wins (suddenly Trump supporters who said the economy is shit now will say its great by March, and vice versa), so can't you just save us all the brain cells and wait to have these arguments until after (if) Trump wins, when you'll all magically be arguing the opposite point of view.
You seem to think you know how I think.
You clearly don't.
Because everyone is "average", right?
The article shows real wages growth by percentile.
Across all segments, real wages are up.
This uses a different inflation metric for each of the underlying buckets. PCE for after tax earnings, CPI-W for hourly, CPI-U for weekly. I get the intention, but the differences between PCE and CPI-W/U skew the real wage growth numbers for each class of worker and hits hourly/weekly workers with higher inflation vs. after tax workers for example.
Shrug.
It documents the argument, which is better than the people echoing Fox News do.
If Trump gets a pass on 2020, pretending Covid issues vanished in Jan 2021 is disingenuous.
Depending on where you pick the bottom of the Covid dominated impact on the economy and stats, there is a solid argument that people are simply far better off.
The 2019 baselined real wage gains use the broadest definition from BLS.
Take politics out of it. The reason polling shows economic pain is because workers saw real wage growth of 9.4% from 16-19 (or 6.8% including covid (ie 16-q1 21) vs 2.24% from 21-24. Real wages were negative through q1 24. To discount the impact of inflation is quite partisan. The “opinions are disconnected from economic reality” narrative also reflects partisan bias. Idk who will win, there are many other problems ppl care about, and none of this may matter, but we should look at data with clarity.
Real wages have increased over the last 12 months, outpacing inflation.
Imagine rooting for Trump Tarriffs and immigration raids which will make prices SKYROCKET for the poor, and claiming he's the one who will help paycheck to paycheck folks.
Deflation would cause a revolt.
Polls consistently show about 60% of the population believes the country is in a recession.
Doesn't mean they are right.
Back to my point about "understanding".
As an alternative explanation: the US economy has bifurcated and that 60% is actually in a recession.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-selective-recession-lower-233824187.html
First, a country being in recession is not about polling a portion of the population.
Real GDP is doing quite well.
Second, that article says nothing about 60%.
I completely agree that some people aren't doing well.
But broadly people are doing better in real dollars.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/business/economy/inflation-wages-pay-salaries.html
60% of the public consistently states that the economy is in a recession across a number of polls.
Read the article. Recession like conditions exist for the bottom 50-60% of wage earners.
And? 60% + of conservatives believe that trump won the election in 2020. Delusional.
Polls are meaningless in this instance.
Read the other messages in this thread.
The ones where you misquote articles and ignore evidence that proves you are wrong?
Perhaps Jordan actually has a point.
And the same percentage believes that the inflation rate is increasing and the sick market has been flat or declining in the past year. It’s a miracle the US has done so well.
If you have credit card debt what's the interest now? What's the interest on a car loan?
What matters is how economic conditions are impacting a specific economic cohort.
The economy was doing stellar between 2017-2019, economists can be shills too, like Paul Krugman who predicted a recession in 2016 if trump were to win.
The economy has been in a long expansionary cycle from 2008 all the way until now, there have been policies by both republicans and democrats since then that have both helped/hurt that growth. The only people who see it any other way are hardcore partisans.
Massive deficit spending with record low interest rates can be amazing.
Krugman has explained his reasoning and what happened that made it not apply.
The only people who call him a shill are hardcore partisans.
TL;DR edit : Srivikram agrees with me below that Trump's economic performance was nothing particularly exceptional, and that it is really about feelings rather than data.
Except he is a shill; it's been consistently evident that his actual economic views aligned more left wing than Clinton's but he shilled for Clinton and put attack pieces on Bernie during the entire primary season.
And in response to your comment about massive spending with low interest rates; maybe a look at a graph of the federal funds rate during the Obama presidency?
Or the deficit year by year during Obama's second term versus trump's term excluding the covid year.
Not a uniquely trump thing. And if you really think all of that was a interest rate and spending fuelled orgy I don't think you have much of an explanation for how that growth took place in a much less inflationary environment. Unless you're argument is that trump inherited Obama's amazing economy!
Last I recall, liberals were making plenty of excuses about how Obama was close to full employment and that a Trump presidency would lead to significant inflation.
This is no less partisan behavior than conservative idiots who are saying that an economy with super low unemployment and high growth year after year is the "worst economy" in decades, or pretending that Trumps last year had nothing to do with the record increase in inflation.
Krugman explains his reasoning and acknowledges when he has been wrong.
And yes, Trump inherited Obama's economy, then added a ton to the deficit with his tax cuts.
The deficits were comparable to Obamas second term, shows me you didn't look the numbers up. If you want to talk about 2020, we can talk about the deficits in Obama's first term, and I'm not disingenuous enough to compare recession spending to normal years
The economy did well for hundreds of years if you leave it every recession.
Goldman Sachs for Harris! Cheney for Harris! So left wing!
People value the intangibles, which aren't measured.
Trump isn't a conservative, though. He's a populist.
I really don't understand where you are coming from.
What do you think is so damaging about Dem policies?
What do you think will be better about Trump policies?
What even are Trumps policy positions?
I forget when he says he's going to put tarrifs on imports and deport millions of people am I supposed to believe him or not?
Every other civilized country outside of Europe (which is currently being overrun by migrant thugs and criminals) deports people who overstay or enter illegally. That's not a fascist, racist, or uniquely cruel policy
The Dems kept most of trump's tariffs btw, what do you have to say about that?
1: you dodged all the questions
2: what he's talking about is orders of magnitude more of both tariffs and deportations and he's been clear that the deportations aren't limited to people in the country illegally
Name literally one instance where he said he would deport people here legally. Again, you're ignoring the fact Dems kept the tariffs.
Btw I generally do not support tariffs, but much of the stuff trump has said about trade not being equal is true. Plenty of countries still employ protectionist policies while america lets imports come in freely.
And on the other hand wildly unsustainable current account deficits can put a countrys financial system in a precarious position in moments of shock, several economists have broached the subject, including JM Keynes (both parties rely heavily on Keynesian economics today when it comes to recessions), who proposed an international clearing union to help even out trade imbalances. Keynes at one point even suggested tariffs are a logical part of a recovery plan in addition to reducing interest rates (which also devalues currency and increases exports) since they would boost net exports and increase aggregate demand.
This isn't without argument within the field of economists but this is to give you an idea that many topics that lay people considered totally settled by experts are often up for debate in academic circles
Why does it matter that they left the last round of tarrifs in place? I'm ignoring it because it seems irrelevant to me. Would what trump is proposing now somehow be better or worse if they had removed them?
I don't see the same energy directed at the Dems for doing nothing about the tariffs. It's almost a tacit acceptance that those are here to stay
Biden's administration is likely to match the number of deportations that happened under Trump.
There would have been more, but the R's were unwilling to fund the efforts to process asylum claims.
But Biden opened the border on his first day in office and did nothing for three and a half as millions poured in. He only started to try to stop when he saw it was unpopular with even Democrats. There’s a housing shortage in many cities now.
The border is not open and the election was not stolen.
The constant lies get very tiring, and convince no one.
"As seen on Fox News", right?
Easy for you to talk when you're nowhere near the border buddy
The deportations are higher because border crossings are also higher. That isn't a fair comparison.
It is a simple statement of fact.
Why do you think it is isn't fair?
Is this a serious question?
If 10 people come over and you expel 5 is different from having 5 come over and expelling 3
Lmao - it amazes me how many people are here reading Nate’s professional opinion that the election is a toss up when they are already know who’s going to win. My gut tells me it will be Kamala - but we could also have to suffer through another 4 or 10 years of Donald.
78 years old tho?
Talk about overconfidence. This comment might age very poorly.
Isn't it past your bedtime, Ivan? It's like 9pm in St. Petersburg.
nah
You’re mistaken about Trump.
In a 2022 speech at the Heritage Foundation—the same foundation tied to the authors of “2025”—Trump denies global warming, dismisses it as a “hoax,” and absurdly claims that sea level rise is only "1/100th of an inch" over 300 years. Such statements show a flagrant disregard for the increasing threat posed by climate change, particularly as recent hurricanes, intensified by warming oceans, wreak havoc on American communities.
Tidal gauges in the San Francisco Bay Area have tracked sea level rise since the 1850s, showing an increase of approximately 8 inches. The impact is undeniable: substantial funding is being allocated to protect San Francisco International Airport, while properties near Stinson Beach have suffered from unprecedented storms. Before retirement, I jogged along the Bay and have seen firsthand the damage climate change has wrought.
The tidal gauge record is clear: sea level rise is accelerating.
In the same 2022 speech, Trump references his “close” relationship with Heritage Foundation leadership multiple times, praising their policy work. Yet, despite these ties, the Heritage Foundation’s CEO recently claimed Trump had no involvement with “2025”—a strange denial, considering the foundation's influential role in shaping conservative policy since the Reagan administration.
Setting up your narrative to claim voter fraud?
Conservative in terms of politics, or in terms of making election prognostications?
lol it's not going to be that amazing
But yes Trump is going to win
I'm currently living several 100 miles closer to the border than you, it's not at all fictional, the great replacement theory is very much real, and it will backfire spectacularly once democrats realize that culturally conservative hispanics will not vote for them at the numbers they want them to. I suppose the excess of right wing strongmen dominating throughout south and central America could have clued them in but what more can you expect from a group of people who think all people of the same race think the same?
Have fun losing, dipshit
Are you alive? Or are you a bot?🤖
What policies from the left are you talking about? Kamala’s campaign couldn’t be more moderate. It’s the most right wing Democratic Party platform since 2004.
I think Nate might be overthinking things on the turnout. Higher turnout has always favored Democrats, and I don't think there's any reason to suspect that's different this time, particularly when polling data is showing abortion as one of the most motivating issues this cycle. I'm betting that higher turnout, combined with Gallup's higher enthusiasm among Democrats, is strong evidence that we might be looking at a polling error that is favoring Trump. Kamala may be doing far better than expected.
I'm usually not one of the "Nate's a pundit now" people, but he's being extremely pundit-y lately when it comes to this.
Political depolarization is definitely a thing, but one of the reasons Democrats tended to do better in high-turnout elections was not just about voting demographics, but because it represented greater political engagement generally. I don't mean to make sweeping characterizations about what's "correct," but for the last 50 years polls taken among all people (*not voters*) have indicated higher support for Democratic policy agendas, and Silver himself has said that the more people know and hear about Trump, the less they like him, so I don't know if marginal racial re-alignment (Harris is still gonna lose white people) is strong enough to counter everything else we know about turnout.
And Nate is continuing to set the stage for a "shoulda picked Shapiro" dance should Harris lose, going on about it at length on his podcast under the non-falsifiable assumption that Walz had exactly zero positive impact and that Shapiro would have had net positive impact in places outside of PA (on Dem enthusiasm in general, or, depressing as it is to speculate, turnout in Michigan specifically). Super-pundit-y stuff there in particular.
I think there's just something crazy-making about having to spin your wheels every day saying "it's a tie, it's a coin toss, it's a tie, it's a coin toss" when the people (who are now your direct customers because that's the creator economy hellscape we live in how) demand more from you. To give Silver some grace, it must be irresistible to enrage in punditry when you've run out of actual insights to give people.
Especially when people keep asking "How does XYZ thing affect the model???" and the answer invariably is, "It doesn't, and you shouldn't put much stock in it because the data on XYZ being predictive is weak at best."
Nate is not out alone on some desert island when he says the obvious. There are reporters and pundits with decades of experience saying the same thing about Shapiro. One pollster even did a PA poll where they asked both Harris/Walz and Harris/Shapiro against Trump/Vance and she was ahead in the poll only with Shapiro. If Trump wins PA, he has about a 90% chance of winning the election. The argument that Harris choosing Shapiro would have suppressed turnout in Michigan or would have cost her even more Union voters was always an absurd argument.
Honestly I think Kamala didn’t pick Shapiro for exactly the reason she should have and not just because of PA.
Kamala knew she had to pick a white male to balance the ticket and then proceeded to pick the least masculine male of the available options. She obviously didn’t gel with Shapiro and she did with Waltz but if she was smart she would have realised that her gelling with someone was a contraindication of the person being convincing to the swing voters that Kamala needed to win the election.
TL,DR - Kamala picked Walz because he is the liberal woman’s idea of what a man should be.
This is insanely reductive, toxic thinking.
It relies on a world where the Vice President of the United States is intimidated by masculinity. Which is on its face just dumb.
It also thinks we live in a world where a rural hunter and high school football coach who fixes cars was somehow "the least masculine option." Walz is an almost comically masculine role model stereotype, which is part of why he is popular.
The campaign started selling camo hats with his name on it. "Least masculine?" What a joke.
lol oh a bit of camo makes someone so masculine.
Oh, it certainly doesn't. It's a stereotype. That's was my point. Walz is a stereotype of a masculine role model, and the campaign leaned into that from day one.
I agree with you. It is called Tim Kaine Syndrome and only infects Democratic female presidential candidates. This disease causes poll anxiety, ballot fatigue, and election loss.
Like Nate, you are forgetting about the 2-3 weeks of Walz-mania that swept the nation after she picked him.
There was nothing at all like that with Tim Kaine, or any other VP pick in modern history for that matter.
And while Tim Kaine was absolutely a vanilla wafer choice, we need to stop remembering Hillary Clinton's campaign as a total disaster. She should have campaigned more in Wisconsin, yes, but she got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Shit I didn’t even think about it but yes Tim Kaine is another great example.
Trump is picking up minority voters. They are less likely to vote than the white collar professionals that form the base of the Democrats now.
The number of minority voters he's picking up is debatable. Sample sizes of minority voters are small, which results in huge margins of error.
Regardless, when it comes to the white collar vote, you've got things backwards. White collar professionals are more likely to vote, not less likely.
Not all sample sizes for all polls are small. What's more if it's random error then aggregating across all polls shouldn't show a meaningful migration of minority voters to Trump. That is not the conclusion of professional pollsters and analysts.
As for the white collar vote, reread what I wrote. Minority voters are disproportionately blue collar and are thus less likely to vote than whites.
You're correct, I misread your point about white collar workers.
However, my other point still stands: Increased minority turnout only helps Trump if he's winning more than 50% of their vote. Nobody, including "professional voters and analysts," thinks that's the case.
See my other response to you.
I already replied to it.
Minority voters still skew heavily towards Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/01/democrats-voter-registration-minorities/
Minority voters still favor Democrats, albeit by smaller margins. Higher turnout among minorities still nets out to a Democratic benefit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/01/democrats-voter-registration-minorities/
Why do you keep posting an almost 7 month old article as proof? Biggest worry was that a 81 year old Biden would not attract those voters. Now Trump is the old white man.
Polling still shows Trump picking up minority voters compared to 2020 while Harris loses support. The idea that this isn't still an issue is incorrect.
Trump has to win over 50% of minority voters in order for increased minority turnout to benefit him (assuming Trump and Harris supporters vote at the same rate).
Polling is all over the place and you know it. I have seen polls where Harris is ahead and where she is behind of where Biden was in 2020. Way too many "garbage" polls like 2022. Who knows what is going to happen. This election is setting up to be a shit show because so many Trump supporters are already crying about losing before the votes have been counted. Post after post on social media threating violence if Trump does not win.
The latest survey of registered voters found Black men under 50 have decreased their likelihood to vote for Trump to 21%, down from 27% in August — and increased their likelihood to vote for Harris to 59%, up from 51% in August
Now compare Harris to Biden in 2020. Or for that matter Clinton in 2016. Or any of the Obama elections.
Notice the trend?
2012 looks like a cautionary tale in relying too much on enthusiasm gap
Agreed, it's not dispositive, but 2012 also is the outlier, so this is still a good indicator.
Yeah I remember the Republican hopium of 2012 very well. Polls are wrong (except Rasmussen) because the polls are assuming the electorate will look like 2008 and after 4 years of seeing Obama in office, minority turnout will be closer to historical averages.
Swing and a miss!
The enthusiasm gap is 2024 looks about the same as 2020. I haven’t seen any reason to suspect anything other than a close election and I have personal anecdotes that definitely lead me to be skeptical of any narrative of a Trump blowout, but I’m also skeptical of a Harris blowout.
Define blowout? Is winning almost all the swing states a blowout? Cause that may be what happens if the correlated error was 1-2% which doesn’t seem like a blowout to me.