site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  22hr ago (text post)   12848 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump is now up to 79.7% on Polymarket with small leads in MI, WI, and PA. IIRC, Harris needs to win all three of those states.

Here in Antifa-land there is already a helicopter hovering within earshot. Oh, the memories.

Here in Antifa-land there is already a helicopter hovering within earshot. Oh, the memories.

I had to laugh at Scott, here:

The market defines “major [election riot]” as five hundred participants causing either $1 million in damage or 10 hospitalizations/deaths. This market is priced higher than Manifold’s chance that Trump loses, suggesting a ~5% chance that the Democrats riot (or that Republicans win but riot anyway).

His calculation was to set the chance of (presumably rightwing) riots if Trump loses to 100% and assign the remainder to Trump's victory. That's not an assumption I share, to put it lightly.

I want to see more of PA/WI/MI, but at the least it seems the Selzer poll was... wrong.

Getting ready for the riots! Been needing a new TV.

I want to see more of PA/WI/MI, but at the least it seems the Selzer poll was... wrong.

I suspect that not just the Selzer poll was trying to lead opinion rather than reflect it.

She pulled this same stunt in 2020 for the Senate race; which, to be fair, did manage to get the RNC to panic and blow money there until she put out a "new" poll showing them up by 10.

She's a hack; even if she weren't, her methodology is to triple-down on landline phone polling, but only counting guaranteed voters. How anyone expected this to be legit is beyond me.

Oh, certainly. Her poll was obviously motivated. If the Democratic party's army of pollsters looking for good news weren't able to see such trends, it wasn't for a lack of looking.

I'm thinking more of the other herding polls. I suspect some of them may have been pushed slightly higher not just on grounds of uncertainty, but to avoid a self-fulfilling doom spiral from dispiriting the Democrats in the final phase. That level of uniformity between polls is extremely unlikely, particularly when there are plenty of incentives to lean out.

Herding is a defense if you believe organizational embarrassment is a priority, but I don't think that applies to many of the organizations that were herding.

Oh, certainly. Her poll was obviously motivated.

The obviousness escaped several posters here.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats