Monkeyboy wrote:

Slowhand wrote:I like her. Seems like a "TOUGH COOKIE". And you need those.

I think she would have been a fantastic replacement for Barr. We'll need a bulldog to take over that dept and uncover the mess. I thought she would have been great.

I plan to start helping in September, assuming I'm still here. I feel like I could help in Trump country (Somerset County), based on the yard signs. It will be important to get out dems in every corner of the state and they probably don't have as much help here.

Duckworth possibly

It wouldn't matter if he did know anything about her except he might be saying different nasty things.

well at least she's not a pedophile like Mr Trump.

got em

article on forbes say at least one oddsplace dropped after the announcement. only mentions one place, not sure if it changed across boards:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackjones/ ... bc81e253da

I read that Maddow had something on her show ay about the relationship between Harris and Biden. Apparently, they worked well together in 2008 on a relief package. That may have been part of the reason for his choice.

the author of the crime bill coupled with a prosecutor with an ugly track record for minorities. the party loves to yell black lives matter but i guess that's where it ends.

Why are people not allowed to evolve? Or were you calling for an end to cash bail and defunding the police 30 years ago? If not, can we hold that against you?

Monkeyboy wrote:I read that Maddow had something on her show ay about the relationship between Harris and Biden. Apparently, they worked well together in 2008 on a relief package. That may have been part of the reason for his choice.

She wasn't in the Senate until 2017? She was a DA in San Francisco in 2008.

Where that is true, she was the CA AG from 2011 - 2017 and a large state like CA probably had some hand in the bill and/or definitely worked with key politicians.

thephan wrote:Where that is true, she was the CA AG from 2011 - 2017 and a large state like CA probably had some hand in the bill and/or definitely worked with key politicians.

Right, well if it is true, then maybe MB can post a link or something so we can see it.

CalvinBall wrote:Why are people not allowed to evolve? Or were you calling for an end to cash bail and defunding the police 30 years ago? If not, can we hold that against you?

Biden and Harris are both still defending their terrible records, so I think it’s fair game.

The 538 forecast is out, has Biden at 71% to win.

cool, perfectly in step with Hillary 2016!

slugsrbad wrote:The 538 forecast is out, has Biden at 71% to win.

really does seem like it will come down to who wins Florida and PA. nothing else much matters.

CalvinBall wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:The 538 forecast is out, has Biden at 71% to win.

really does seem like it will come down to who wins Florida and PA. nothing else much matters.

Not completely true. If Trump has given up on MI, which it seems like he has, Biden can be safely estimated at 248. If he gets PA + ME2 + NE2 he wins.

slugsrbad wrote:The 538 forecast is out, has Biden at 71% to win.

The write up is worth reading - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/it ... trump-out/

I am most surprised I think by Biden only being 93% to win if the election was held today. Like, I understand there's a chance everything is very wrong, but a 'chance' feels like it should be 2-3%, not 7%. That might be minor quibbling.

In 2016, in the model wars, I liked the Upshot the best, which had Clinton at 85%. Thought throughout the campaign 538 was too rosy on Trump. Mostly not for statistical/methodological reasons, but because the percentage felt right based on what I saw and knew. I think 538's approach to errors not being independent proved prescient, so probably not worth getting too far out on a limb tearing apart what they're doing now.

Trying to model uncertainty moving forward is something I do not know how to do technically, and intuitively where they have it feels too uncertain, but some of the other models (e.g. the Economist model has Biden at 97% to win the popular vote) are absurdly overconfident. Nate's write up seems correct to me, but the numbers seem a bit low. I dunno.

CalvinBall wrote:Why are people not allowed to evolve? Or were you calling for an end to cash bail and defunding the police 30 years ago? If not, can we hold that against you?

thats how low of a bar we've set. "they've changed so much over the past..let me check the calendar...12 months!"

Illinois always goes blue so I'm just gonna write in Bernie.

jamiethekiller wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Why are people not allowed to evolve? Or were you calling for an end to cash bail and defunding the police 30 years ago? If not, can we hold that against you?

thats how low of a bar we've set. "they've changed so much over the past..let me check the calendar...12 months!"

Quite a bit has happened in the last 12 months.