Quote from: LennStar on October 17, 2024, 11:01:59 AM

Quote from: sixwings on October 17, 2024, 09:15:51 AM

TBF Steve, you live in Canada (as do I), where school shootings are not a risk or an issue.

School schootings, if you take the longer average and not that last year in the graph, are about one per millenium per school.
Equally roughly you can say that in each of those events 1% of students get killed.

Traffic death is roughly 1 in 10'000 per year.

So in other words car traffic is about 10 times more dangerous than school shootings. And soft drinks even a lot more.

I am always surprised how singular risks get so overblown (of course the risk for school schootings in the US is tremendously) compared to daily ones. Except for nuclear power, where "once in a generation a radius of 20 miles gets uninhabitable forever" is called "totally save".

It’s more than the probability of being killed or injured. The trauma of school shootings is real, and IME orders of magnitude more than fatalities from car accidents (which, as the name implies, are actually accidents). Schools with mass shootings have been torn down or renovated to the point where it’s no longer recognizable. There’s even a federal grant program to fund razing a school following a mass shooting, which is profoundly sad. Even if it does reopen (often at least a school year later) many students choose not to return due to PTSD.

Tl;dr- Comparing the statistics of dying in a school shooting to a car accident entirely misses the emotional differences.

Also, parents *do* stress out of their minds about kids driving and *do* insist on them having cell phones on them in case of car-related emergencies, so I'm not quite getting how the fact that kids can get killed in cars explains why parents wouldn't worry about school shootings...

Parents, especially moms, don't seem to have a ceiling on the amount of anxiety they can have about their children's safety.

Also, human emotions don't run on stats. Any parent whose kid comes home from an active shooter drill is going to have school shootings on their mind. 

My understanding is that kids board the bus with their phone.  It is only when they start the school day that they lose access, and at the end of the school day regain access to it.  So if they need to get home after school, they have their cell phone.

Have I missed the two candidates talking about children?  I know they both support increasing the child tax credit.  But I haven't heard the connection of social media and suicide rates (teen and preteen) made in either campaign.

The increase in suicides since social media is far greater (thousand+ per year) than deaths from school shootings (10-35 killed per year).  It is also more a more widespread problem, found in countries that rarely have a school shooting.

Quote from: MustacheAndaHalf on October 18, 2024, 03:28:53 AM

The increase in suicides since social media is far greater (thousand+ per year) than deaths from school shootings (10-35 killed per year).  It is also more a more widespread problem, found in countries that rarely have a school shooting.

This.  As a parent, I am far more worried about realistic dangers - my child's mental health and deterioration of quality of education if they were to have a cell phone all day at school.  The pouch system works fine - they keep the phones with them, can break into them during a true emergency, and can otherwise unlock them with permission/at arrival and dismissal. 

My bigger point on school shootings is that not only are they still extremely rare despite the increase in the US, I have seen no evidence or data that having a cell phone improves the outcome or communication with parents for individual students.  Maybe I'm more pragmatic than the average parent, idk.  But I do know that my kids' devices are frequently turned off or have a dead battery or aren't near them, so, as someone pointed out above, I don't have any real confidence that I would be able to reach them at a given time during the day, much less during a school shooting.

There's actually some concern that having your phone could potentially increase your risk during a school shooting. There is evidence from some past incidents of shooters trying to use texting/DMs to target specific students by acting as a victim and trying to lure them out. School shootings are typically pretty personal acts of violence (shooters telling teachers/kids they like not to come to school tomorrow, etc) and thoroughly planned (which is why building hardening efforts also seem like a feel good distraction to addressing the problem).

Harris is now even or worse in PA, WI, MI, NV, NC, GA, AZ according to the polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. I'm going to revise my odds to 66% Trump win at this point. I think he's a heavy favorite... If I could figure out a legal way to bet on it where I am I'd do it because the betting odds are still close(r) to 50/50.

The swing on Polymarket has been wild basically from October 1st, being at 50/50, to now 60/40 for Trump.  Meanwhile, Kamala is 66/34 to win the popular vote, down a bit from 70/30...  I''ve put a bit of USDC on Kamala winning the election just because this looks like good expected returns for a situation that is still likely 50/50.

Quote from: dividendman on October 18, 2024, 09:19:48 AM

Harris is now even or worse in PA, WI, MI, NV, NC, GA, AZ according to the polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. I'm going to revise my odds to 66% Trump win at this point. I think he's a heavy favorite... If I could figure out a legal way to bet on it where I am I'd do it because the betting odds are still close(r) to 50/50.

The swing on Polymarket has been wild basically from October 1st, being at 50/50, to now 60/40 for Trump.  Meanwhile, Kamala is 66/34 to win the popular vote, down a bit from 70/30...  I''ve put a bit of USDC on Kamala winning the election just because this looks like good expected returns for a situation that is still likely 50/50.

Predictit has, oddly, 55-48 odds. Am I reading that right?

The first day of Georgia early voting was almost 3x what 2020 was. In the past, that's been a good sign for Democrats, given T's dismissal of it.

Quote from: NorCal on October 18, 2024, 09:58:06 AM

Quote from: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 18, 2024, 09:40:46 AM

Quote from: dividendman on October 18, 2024, 09:19:48 AM

Harris is now even or worse in PA, WI, MI, NV, NC, GA, AZ according to the polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. I'm going to revise my odds to 66% Trump win at this point. I think he's a heavy favorite... If I could figure out a legal way to bet on it where I am I'd do it because the betting odds are still close(r) to 50/50.

The swing on Polymarket has been wild basically from October 1st, being at 50/50, to now 60/40 for Trump.  Meanwhile, Kamala is 66/34 to win the popular vote, down a bit from 70/30...  I''ve put a bit of USDC on Kamala winning the election just because this looks like good expected returns for a situation that is still likely 50/50.

The WSJ had a piece this morning on Polymarket.  Four accounts (probably linked to one individual) have been buying positions on a Trump win in a way that has impacted the win probabilities.


The finance side of my brain sees a huge mispriced risk here. If I felt like using my big brain, I’d be shorting Trump on Polymarket and finding another market to go long on Trump.

Yeah, it's hard for me to believe that odds changed that dramatically in these last 18 days, unless of course somebody knows something...  My $10k bet has an expected payout of $28k if Kamala wins, a profit that I'll spend on nice dinners toasting democracy repeatedly.  If I lose my 10k, that'll be the least of my worries in 2025!

How did you place that bet?

dividendman - When I login to IBKR, they show a banner mentioning their election futures market.
https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/general/about/mediaRelations/10-4-24.php
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/15/election-prediction-markets-how-they-work-kalshi-interactive-brokers.html

Quote from: dividendman on October 18, 2024, 11:50:01 AM

Quote from: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 18, 2024, 10:06:10 AM

Quote from: NorCal on October 18, 2024, 09:58:06 AM

Quote from: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 18, 2024, 09:40:46 AM

Quote from: dividendman on October 18, 2024, 09:19:48 AM

Harris is now even or worse in PA, WI, MI, NV, NC, GA, AZ according to the polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. I'm going to revise my odds to 66% Trump win at this point. I think he's a heavy favorite... If I could figure out a legal way to bet on it where I am I'd do it because the betting odds are still close(r) to 50/50.

The swing on Polymarket has been wild basically from October 1st, being at 50/50, to now 60/40 for Trump.  Meanwhile, Kamala is 66/34 to win the popular vote, down a bit from 70/30...  I''ve put a bit of USDC on Kamala winning the election just because this looks like good expected returns for a situation that is still likely 50/50.

The WSJ had a piece this morning on Polymarket.  Four accounts (probably linked to one individual) have been buying positions on a Trump win in a way that has impacted the win probabilities.


The finance side of my brain sees a huge mispriced risk here. If I felt like using my big brain, I’d be shorting Trump on Polymarket and finding another market to go long on Trump.

Yeah, it's hard for me to believe that odds changed that dramatically in these last 18 days, unless of course somebody knows something...  My $10k bet has an expected payout of $28k if Kamala wins, a profit that I'll spend on nice dinners toasting democracy repeatedly.  If I lose my 10k, that'll be the least of my worries in 2025!

How did you place that bet?

It was a bit convoluted, but I can DM you if you are really interested and have hit a roadblock.  Let's just say that I have a current UK passport as well as bank accounts overseas (from previous international assignments).  Buying the USDC crypto is probably straightforward, and you can use a VPN to register to Polymarkets if I recall, but there may be a step or two in there that a US person cannot quite bridge...

Thanks. I'm not going to do all that. I thought there was some easy new way introduced to the US I wasn't aware of. I think there will be for the next election since the courts ruled its legal to bet on elections now.

Quote from: dividendman on October 19, 2024, 11:32:09 AM

Thanks. I'm not going to do all that. I thought there was some easy new way introduced to the US I wasn't aware of. I think there will be for the next election since the courts ruled its legal to bet on elections now.

The courts have ruled that money is speech, a well regulated militia means anybody with money who wants to buy a gun, that women's health is best determined by men who don't know the woman who have no medical training, and that bribing elected officials is totally OK.  Why not bet on elections too?

Interactive Brokers has introduced forecast contracts on election outcomes.

https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/general/about/mediaRelations/10-4-24.php

Quote from: dividendman on October 18, 2024, 09:19:48 AM

Harris is now even or worse in PA, WI, MI, NV, NC, GA, AZ according to the polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/. I'm going to revise my odds to 66% Trump win at this point. I think he's a heavy favorite... If I could figure out a legal way to bet on it where I am I'd do it because the betting odds are still close(r) to 50/50.

r/fivethirtyeight talks a lot about it, lots of controversy on what's happening here. There's been very few, if any, high quality polls come out recently but there's been a flood of very republican/partisan polls released that all go into the model. No one really knows what to make of it as high quality polls show the race as stable, and all the other fundamentals such as volunteers, small dollar donations, etc. all MASSIVELY favor Harris.

It seems the general take is that the polling industry is broken, possibly intentionally by republican partisan pollers who want a specific storyline. I wouldn't be surprised if republican billionaires were driving a "trumps surging" headline by betting on Trump and flooding the zone with BS Trump polls to get the trump rubes to place bets and then switching to placing bets on Harris when the price is lower. All conjecture but it seems like the kind of scam that the republican party would run these days.

Also response rates are like 1-2%, which makes polling even more difficult/expensive (in 2016 it was 16% for example, and that was crazy low)

I dont bet, but if I was a better, I'd be putting money on Harris, I think she's going to sweep the swing states with a possible chance at florida given abortion on the ballot.

and/or having wall to wall coverage of a Trump surge gives more credence to an argument that the vote was rigged/fraudulent/cheated if there is a Harris victory ("How could she come out ahead? Look at all the polls saying Trump was leading in all these states? Fraud!!")

I think Harris will win by a similar margin to Biden. No way in heck I'd vote for Trump. My qualifications: until 2024 I was a swing voter in a swing state with a record of voting for the outcome.
2016: Abstained. Result: Clinton won popular vote, Trump electoral vote.
2020: Biden. Result: Biden.
2022: I was one of the mythical voters who split my ticket, giving Nevada a Democratic senator but a Republican governor.
2023: Moved out of state, so my vote doesn't count any more, and maybe instantly lost touch as a result?

Trump's position is that the entire problem with our electoral system is that it allows swing voters in swing states to decide the election. Elections should be decided by Trump voters only. So, if swing voters in swing states vote Trump, they're dumber than I thought. (Narrator voice: "people are routinely dumber than Radagast thinks").

It is hard to reconcile Pennsylvania's move from +3.5% Harris to -3.0% Harris in polls a week apart.  I'm ignoring the pollsters who are ranked outside the top 100 in an effort to have more reliable results.  But 538 itself ranks things a bit differently, and shows the above states tied.

But digging into Michigan, there's an outlier with no reputation.  The Bullfinch Group's polls of Oct 11-17 show Harris up by +8% in two polls, far away from any other poll result.  538 lists about 500 pollsters, with the top 282 ranked.  Bullfinch Group isn't even on the list - but their poll results influence how 538 views the Presidential race.

If you drop that one outlier poll by an unranked pollster, Trump is ahead in Michigan (15 electoral college votes).

In a recently released Associated Press - NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, 62% of voters think the economy is in poor condition.

This is despite a 4.1% unemployment rate, 3% GDP growth, falling inflation, high market liquidity, and stock prices near record highs.

If these measurements are "bad condition", what exactly would "good condition" look like? Even those without any economic knowledge or exposure to facts should be able to look around at the heavy traffic, filled parking lots at shopping centers and restaurants, the help wanted signs, or posts from friends going on vacations.

I can only conclude that most voters are misinformed about the actual state of the economy. Elon Musk and Fox News may have something to do with that.

But the startling realization doesn't end there. I can only conclude that results do not matter.

A political administration could fulfill voters' wishes* for a strong economy with full employment, and if the other side controls the media they will be able to persuade most people that the economy is doing badly. Similarly, if the party in control of the media oversaw a complete economic collapse, they could probably convince a majority of people that the economy wasn't actually in recession.

All that matters is control over information feeds. That's THE thing swinging elections now. It's how Trump can run against the "bad" economy despite all the statistics and observable evidence saying otherwise. This observation is scary because it implies the United States will become a one-party nation without competitive elections as soon as political control over media is consolidated. The dominance of right-wing content on news feeds operated by Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, X, and Fox News suggests that this time is approaching.

Harris' numbers may have sagged in recent weeks due to a coordinated tilt by X, Fox, and/or others to promote "bad economy" narratives. It really could be that simple.

*I do not actually believe the decisions of politicians have much to do with economic cycles, but the average American voter seems to think so, which is why they say the economy is their top issue. I use the phrase here to mean appearing to deliver economic outcomes.

These promises Musk is making to pay voters in swing states is really pissing me off!!!!

I realize nothing is sacred, but really, is nothing sacred?!

Nothing is sacred.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that this American experiment has about run its course.

Quote from: ChpBstrd on October 21, 2024, 03:11:02 PM

In a recently released Associated Press - NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, 62% of voters think the economy is in poor condition.

This is despite a 4.1% unemployment rate, 3% GDP growth, falling inflation, high market liquidity, and stock prices near record highs.

If these measurements are "bad condition", what exactly would "good condition" look like? Even those without any economic knowledge or exposure to facts should be able to look around at the heavy traffic, filled parking lots at shopping centers and restaurants, the help wanted signs, or posts from friends going on vacations.

I can only conclude that most voters are misinformed about the actual state of the economy. Elon Musk and Fox News may have something to do with that.

But the startling realization doesn't end there. I can only conclude that results do not matter.

A political administration could fulfill voters' wishes* for a strong economy with full employment, and if the other side controls the media they will be able to persuade most people that the economy is doing badly. Similarly, if the party in control of the media oversaw a complete economic collapse, they could probably convince a majority of people that the economy wasn't actually in recession.

All that matters is control over information feeds. That's THE thing swinging elections now. It's how Trump can run against the "bad" economy despite all the statistics and observable evidence saying otherwise. This observation is scary because it implies the United States will become a one-party nation without competitive elections as soon as political control over media is consolidated. The dominance of right-wing content on news feeds operated by Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, X, and Fox News suggests that this time is approaching.

Harris' numbers may have sagged in recent weeks due to a coordinated tilt by X, Fox, and/or others to promote "bad economy" narratives. It really could be that simple.

*I do not actually believe the decisions of politicians have much to do with economic cycles, but the average American voter seems to think so, which is why they say the economy is their top issue. I use the phrase here to mean appearing to deliver economic outcomes.

Disconnect between what people think of "the economy" and reality is not a new thing.

For sure. Additionally, most peoples' understanding of the economy is based around things they regularly deal with, like prices of things. Inflation has historically driven Americans absolutely apeshit with rage. They HATE it and they tend to blame the current admin for it regardless of said admin's policy, causes of inflation, or the fact that (in the current case) it's a global post-covid phenomenon that the U.S. has done a relatively good job of reigning in compared with most other nations.

What voters fixate on when someone asks them about the economy is things like insurance premiums, which have sky rocketed in the past few years; the fact that e.g., chicken has never returned to pre-pandemic prices; difficulty in either selling their home due to high mortgage rates; difficulty breaking into the housing market due to very high housing costs; gas prices, and so on.

Since inflation tends to run along with a hot employment market and growing economy, the trick is making sure it is mild enough that it doesn't trigger alarm when paying bills. The inflation of the past few years has triggered A LOT of alarm b/c most Americans have not seen anything like it since the 70s/80s.

Humans don't really make most decisions based on careful examination of facts or broadscale economic data most of the time. Nor do people always have very accurate info about their own financial situation (witness the shocking number of people, some of whom we've had comment on this board over the years, who do their own taxes yet continue to believe falsehoods such as the idea that if they enter a higher tax bracket due to a raise that they are going to end up with less take-home pay).

Humans mostly make  decisions based on emotions/feels;  and the  past 5 years or so a lot of people just 'feel bad' about cost of living (and in a broader way, the direction of the country). When asked, they will assign this lump of bad vibes under the label "economy = bad".

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

Yes, also curious about what violations you saw and if you reported.

Quote from: MustacheAndaHalf on October 18, 2024, 03:28:53 AM

The increase in suicides since social media is far greater (thousand+ per year) than deaths from school shootings (10-35 killed per year).  It is also more a more widespread problem, found in countries that rarely have a school shooting.

This.  As a parent, I am far more worried about realistic dangers - my child's mental health and deterioration of quality of education if they were to have a cell phone all day at school.

Suicides is bad; so is genocide.

From Yuval Noah Harari’s book Nexus:

"In 2016-17 a small Islamist organization known as the Ara-kan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) carried out a spate of attacks aimed to establish a separatist Muslim state in Arakan/ Rakhine, killing and abducting dozens of non-Muslim civilians and assaulting several army outposts. In response, the Myanmar army and Buddhist extremists launched a full-scale ethnic-cleansing campaign aimed against the entire Rohingya community. They destroyed hundreds of Rohingya villages, killed between 7,000 and 25,000 unarmed civilians, raped or sexually abused between 18,000 and 60,000 women and men, and brutally expelled about 730,000 Rohingya from the country. The violence was fueled by intense hatred toward all Rohingya. The hatred, in turn, was fomented by anti-Rohingya propaganda, much of it spreading on Facebook, which was by 2016 the main source of news for millions and the most important platform for political mobilization in Myanmar.

An aid worker called Michael who lived in Myanmar in 2017 described a typical Facebook news feed: ‘The vitriol against the Rohingya was unbelievable online—the amount of it, the violence of it. It was overwhelming. That's all that was on people's news feed in Myanmar at the time. It reinforced the idea that these people were all terrorists not deserving of rights.’  In addition to reports of actual ARSA atrocities, Facebook accounts were inundated with fake news about imagined atrocities and planned terrorist attacks.”

There is nothing wrong with freedom of speech and it should be protected. But algorithms that decide which speech to recommend that millions of people read in order to enhance the profit of the company should not be protected. Facebook et al, including AIs, should be held accountable. Same for MSNBC and Fox. (Dominion was a start…)

Quote from: Kris on October 21, 2024, 07:19:13 PM

Quote from: wenchsenior on October 21, 2024, 07:01:58 PM

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

So, are you saying that you feel like the red turnout was much increased?

I think we're going to find out what happens when there is really high voter turnout overall... and I don't think it's going to be good for Democrats this time.

Idk, I'm in CT (blue state), we got early voting this year for the first time ever (voted for it on a ballot measure), and yesterday was the first day.  I was really excited to vote, many of my D friends voted yesterday too, and there was a pretty good line of people.  No conversations, though, we usually keep our politics to ourselves here when we're standing in line.

Quote from: Kris on October 21, 2024, 07:19:13 PM

Quote from: wenchsenior on October 21, 2024, 07:01:58 PM

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

So, are you saying that you feel like the red turnout was much increased?

I think we're going to find out what happens when there is really high voter turnout overall... and I don't think it's going to be good for Democrats this time.

MAGA troll alert.  LOL!

Quote from: wenchsenior on October 21, 2024, 07:01:58 PM

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

So, are you saying that you feel like the red turnout was much increased?

I assume so, yes. This is heavily maga area.

Quote from: Kris on October 21, 2024, 07:19:13 PM

Quote from: wenchsenior on October 21, 2024, 07:01:58 PM

Well, just voted early (AKA pissing in the wind) and I've never seen crowds like this in the 23 years I've voted at this location.

Normally early voting at this location requires at most a 5 minute wait.  We waited in line for an hour, feeling IQ points being sucked steadily out by osmosis by the conversations all around us, and watching flagrant violations of election law, but we voted.

Thank goodness that's over.

So, are you saying that you feel like the red turnout was much increased?

I think we're going to find out what happens when there is really high voter turnout overall... and I don't think it's going to be good for Democrats this time.

This is my guess as well. Hoping like hell I'm wrong.

That's a fair point - mail ballots requested about 10 million (roughly 1/3rd) higher than 2016. About half of 2020. Guess we'll see now that in-person early is open in most places and of course election day itself. Funny where we are - doesn't actually seem very politically engaged compared to when we lived in a state capital, but the early voting location everyone seems to know about had a mile-long line of cars yesterday on day one of early voting.

No need.  He has people to do that on camera if necessary.  But yes, I will also be happily surprised if Trump doesn't eke out another win.  Things look very bleak for the US otherwise.

Meh. It was mostly just annoying the first time around. He didn't do anything nearly as crazy or dumb as I expected. We'll muddle through and maybe the democrats will get it through their heads that what polls well with university professors isn't necessarily what most of the country wants.

-W

Quote from: GuitarStv on October 22, 2024, 12:28:33 PM

No need.  He has people to do that on camera if necessary.  But yes, I will also be happily surprised if Trump doesn't eke out another win.  Things look very bleak for the US otherwise.

Meh. It was mostly just annoying the first time around. He didn't do anything nearly as crazy or dumb as I expected. We'll muddle through and maybe the democrats will get it through their heads that what polls well with university professors isn't necessarily what most of the country wants.

-W

I mean...there were definitely consequences to his election.  Women have died from Roe v Wade getting overturned, and I have multiple friends/relatives who bought into the anti-vax stuff and either died or had serious health consequences directly related to that.  And he did try to overturn the election.  I suspect he will succeed if he gets another shot at that while in office.