Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

They were absolutely the same conversation

I often have more than one ongoing conversation with multiple people in the same post. This does not mean that the things are related in any way.

The point of "especially from an evolutionary perspective" was not about "human evolution" but more like viral evolution (though not exactly, I don't think we really have a specific word for it). I do see how this would have been confusing for you, though. The evolutionary perspective in question is that a relatively low-death-rate epidemic that predominantly killed older, sicker patients leaves behind a disproportionately healthier population less likely to suffer as much from a more severe epidemic later, which, I would like to remind you, is still very much in the cards.

[Maximum Spin]

about higher minority death from the disease being attributable to genetics

(Also, I didn't actually say that, I just acknowledged it as a goddamn possibility. Are you ruling it out? What data do you have on this?)

[Lord Shonus]

I assume Pence becomes President, has to choose a new VP, and Harris becomes the Dem nominee and has to choose a new running mate.

Now if it were to happen say, the day before Election Day....yeah, dunno. And that would be the 2020-est thing to happen in 2020.

Before Election Day isn't totally unsalvagable - the election isn't final until the Electoral College votes on December 13. This would give at least some window to have emergency state-level elections or at least for the parties to agree on candidates for the now vacant seats based on how the popular vote went. The really dangerous part is if we lose a winning candidate in late November or early December, just before the EC finalizes it. After the election is final, you just use the standard line of succession, but the EC isn't going to confirm a dead person. Which could get really messy.

[Starver]

(Trump on the way to Walter Reed Medical Center. Given the hyperprecautionary nature, it's not surprising, but I imagine he'd be reluctant to be seen to go under normal circumstances, as in the past. So maybe nothing in it, possibly much.)

((Aha, not the only one to have heard. )

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Our daily bad-faith discussion with Spin aside, Trump has just been hospitalized at Walter Reed. They're claiming it's precautionary, as they did with Boris, but nobody including insiders has seen him since yesterday and he's been flown in.

[WealthyRadish]

The evolutionary perspective in question is that a relatively low-death-rate epidemic that predominantly killed older, sicker patients leaves behind a disproportionately healthier population less likely to suffer as much from a more severe epidemic later, which, I would like to remind you, is still very much in the cards.

about higher minority death from the disease being attributable to genetics

I didn't actually say that, I just acknowledged it as a goddamn possibility.

I'll take this. It's a bad take and I disagree with it, but it's comprehensible and genuinely clarifies/changes the original position to something better.

[RedKing]

So anyways....rather than engage with "just the tip" eugenics-lite, let's revisit the electoral numbers I posted about 2.5 weeks ago and see how they've shifted, shall we?

Using the same category of "safe" as a 7-point or greater differential, there have been no changes to the list of safe states for either side, save one exception:
Minnesota (was D+5) is now polling an average of D+9.4, a pretty whopping 4.4 percent shift in two weeks. This may be partly a statistical artifact as older polls drop out of the average. In any case, we can confidently give Minnesota's 10 EVs to Biden, which brings us to 227-108 with 37 states accounted for.

Of the remaining "swing" states:

Alaska (R+3, 3 EV, Trump) - unchanged
Arizona (D+5.7, 11 EV, Trump) -- now D+3, a change of -2.7
Arkansas (R+2, 6 EV, Trump) - unchanged
Florida (D+1.2, 29 EV, Trump) - now D+1.1, a change of -0.1
Georgia (R+1.3, 16 EV, Trump - now D+0.3, a change of -1.6 and a flip
Iowa (R+1.7, 6 EV, Trump) - now D+0.5, a change of -2.2 and a flip
Michigan (D+4.2, 16 EV, Trump) - now D+5.2, a change of 1.0
Nevada (D+4, 6 EV, Clinton) - now D+5.3, a change of 1.3
North Carolina (D+0.8, 15 EV, Trump) - now D+0.5, a change of -0.3
Ohio (D+2.4, 18 EV, Trump) - now D+3.3, a change of 0.9
Pennsylvania (D+4.3, 20 EV, Trump) - now D5.7, a change of 1.4
South Carolina (R+5, 9 EV, Trump) - now R+5.7, a change of 1.4**
Texas (R+3.5, 38 EV, Trump) - now R+3.2, a change of -0.3
Wisconsin (D+6.4, 10 EV, Trump) - now D+5.5, a change of -0.9

**should be noted that the polls are all over the map on S. Carolina. A poll this week from Quinnipiac has it at R+1, while another this week from CBSNews/YouGov has it at R+10.

So overall what we see is a few close races getting closer (AZ, FL, NC, TX), one relatively strong Dem lean weakening (WI), one relatively weak Dem lean strengthening (OH), three relatively strong Dem leans strengthening (MI, NV, PA), and two weak Rep leans flipping (GA, IA). The lack of change for AK and AR are because of a lack of poll data. It would be really interesting for someone to run some new polls there and see if they've followed Georgia and Iowa in sliding 1.5-2 points toward Biden. Which might be enough to flip Arkansas and at least make Alaska too close to call. The fact that the EVs at stake are so low probably explain the lack of polling interest.

I'm sticking by my earlier calls, with the exception that I'll put Arizona and Georgia back in play, which gives us 8 swing states and a tally of 237-170.

To win, Biden needs to pick up 33 EVs, Trump needs 100.

Arizona (D+3, 11 EV)
Georgia (D+0.3, 16 EV)
Florida (D+1.1, 29 EV)
Michigan (D+5.2, 16 EV)
Nevada (D+5.3, 6 EV)
North Carolina (D+0.5, 15 EV)
Ohio (D+3.3, 18 EV)
Pennsylvania (D+5.7, 20 EV)

Once again, Biden can win with Florida and literally any other state. But he also has numerous ways to win without Florida. If he just takes Michigan and Pennsylvania (where he's up by over 5 in both), he wins. If he somehow takes Georgia and North Carolina and Nevada (maybe Trump shits on grits and Biden complains about the Midwest being boring as fuck), he still wins.

Trump on the other hand, has to win at least 6 of 8. Even if he takes the largest five (FL, PA, OH, MI, GA) that only gets him to 99. Which leaves Biden NC, NV and AZ and 32 votes, and yes you guessed it -- a 269-269 tie. It's essentially impossible for Trump to win without taking at least one of the upper Midwest states (PA, OH, MI) and for each one he loses, he basically needs to win two of the others. It would technically be possible for Trump to lose Florida and win the election by taking all the rest of the states, but that's incredibly unlikely.

The interesting bit is that these polls only run up to 9/30, so they don't really capture any movement due to the debates or Trump's COVID diagnosis. Should be a *very* interesting next couple of weeks as we capture the effects of those events in new poll data. It might get more chaotic, or it might be the nail in Trump's coffin. A national 2-point shift would be enough to all but guarantee a Biden victory, and potentially flip TX, AR, and AK. Which could run the final EC margin up to something like 359-179, which would almost but not quite edge out Barack Obama's victory margin in 2008 (365-173).

FAKEEDIT: Oh, and if Quinnipiac is right and SC is actually more like R+1, then a 2-point shift would flip it as well, and Biden's win would actually trump (no pun intended) Obama's 2008 win, at 368-170.

[Parsely]

The first quote is absolutely the case. Epidemics in general are beneficial for the survivors for a variety of reasons, of which the most important is freeing up resources that would otherwise be consumed by relatively low-value individuals.

Same energy as Richard Dawkins saying "eugenics would work" as if that's a neutral observation

E:

-snip-

Huh, what are EVs? Really interesting analysis, I have to admit I don't really understand the data and how it interpret it so your conclusions are helpful. Where does this info come from?

[Maximum Spin]

The first quote is absolutely the case. Epidemics in general are beneficial for the survivors for a variety of reasons, of which the most important is freeing up resources that would otherwise be consumed by relatively low-value individuals.

Same energy as Richard Dawkins saying "eugenics would work" as if that's a neutral observation

I mean, eugenics would "work", in the sense that you can kill people to remove genetic traits you don't like from the population and they would, in fact, disappear (modulo de novo mutations). It's just that you, you know, shouldn't. Dawkins was right at the time too. If you have a problem with the actual fact because it's something bad people would like, then... I don't even know how your brain works and I'm glad I don't because the answer appears to be "badly".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No they wouldn't? Genotype isn't phenotype, shit will pop up generations later. Eugenics programs have never removed any trait from a population, no matter how many people they killed or sterilized.

[Doomblade187]

For the record, Spin, people seem to be on edge due to your past statements before this convo than anything. The stuff you are referencing about racial health outcomes due to covid and latitude does seem to be a possibility based on the research I've heard. Though you should have added sources wayyyyyyyyyyy earlier in.

On that note, if black americans are more susceptible to COVID-19, then that simply adds ammunition to the fact that we shouldn't be opening back up, as it will put people who are at increased risk at even higher risk. That was really my main point earlier tbh, and it really read like you were trying to explain away the economic factors surrounding COVID and increased minority deaths.

Parsley, an EV is one electoral vote.

[RedKing]

-snip-

Huh, what are EVs? Really interesting analysis, I have to admit I don't really understand the data and how it interpret it so your conclusions are helpful. Where does this info come from?

Electoral Votes.
The polling data is from RealClearPolitics. I use them for the raw data instead of 538, because they don't do any modelling, it's just strict poll aggregation. 538's models are probably more accurate (and actually paint a rosier picture for many states), while RCP has a lot of "toss-ups" and "leans" that aren't even remotely close. But the editorial content of the site has taken a pretty strong rightward lurch over the last 12 years, so I'm not surprised.

[dragdeler]

-

[Doomblade187]

Ah what say you MSH, only 3-4 generations and we can hope to lower the stats by an order of magnitude, somebody famous said it a few hundred years ago!

For fucks sake I could go nextdoors drink a few sips of the extract that is blacker as the night and still loose fewer braincells. I am starting to hate this thread.

Ooh what proof is it.

Also I personally practice and recommend regular breaks.

[Parsely]

The first quote is absolutely the case. Epidemics in general are beneficial for the survivors for a variety of reasons, of which the most important is freeing up resources that would otherwise be consumed by relatively low-value individuals.

Same energy as Richard Dawkins saying "eugenics would work" as if that's a neutral observation

I mean, eugenics would "work", in the sense that you can kill people to remove genetic traits you don't like from the population and they would, in fact, disappear (modulo de novo mutations). It's just that you, you know, shouldn't. Dawkins was right at the time too. If you have a problem with the actual fact because it's something bad people would like, then... I don't even know how your brain works and I'm glad I don't because the answer appears to be "badly".

Modern genetic research says it wouldn't "work" because you can't eliminate carriers of recessive traits from the population because everyone is a carrier for at least one genetic disease. So eugenics "working" just involves forcibly euthenizing people who express the traits, forcibly sterilizing the relatives of people who express the traits. Eugenics is a pseudoscientific excuse to carry out racist genocide, that is the outcome of eugenics, so unless you and Dawkins are a fan of that it's unclear why you want to fight the "impossibility" of eugenics