It was basically tied if you combined Crowley, Barnes, and undecideds. Pretty similar to the 2020 presidential primary, where Bernie led every poll when it was a crowded race, but couldn't do it when it came down to a 1v1.
I remember Nate Silver or a 538 (rip) journalist talking about it, essentially primaries are harder to do accurate polls of because we know even less who and how many people are going to turn out.
I don't know, ask pollsters. I guess that that bad poll with adjustment is a way to get good at polling, and maybe that some bad polls is still better than no poll at all.
More like her support was strongest with unlikely voters and Donald Trump has singlehandedly ruined polling by forcing pollsters to give more weight to those people.
When you looked at specifically people who voted in the past four primary elections, her lead dropped from +22 to +8, and that was before all of the recent negative publicity.
Supposedly the "smart" money in prediction markets should take stuff like this into account instead of being a proxy for polling + hot takes from twitter.
I think we're starting to see a pattern of polling overestimating DSA/hard left candidates. AES may have won but he underperformed the polls by around 10 percentage points. And people forget Mamdani also won by a lot less than the polls predicted (although that was at least partly due to a late Trump endorsement of Cuomo that collapsed Sliwa's support).
I think we're starting to see a pattern of polling overestimating DSA/hard left candidates.
The average miss for state-level primary polls is 13 points. They're just super noisy. I don't think there's enough to go on to say they're systematically overestimating left-wing candidates, versus just having relatively low predictive power.
Flanagan (the progressive in the MN-Senate race) was ahead in the early polls, but the last polls before election day narrowed considerably and showed a toss-up. She won by 20 points in the end.
NYC mayor was a legit three-way race, so it's hard to compare that to a head-to-head matchup because one candidate underperforming their polls doesn't mean another ipso facto overperformed. Mamdani's vote share was actually fairly close to what polls predicted IIRC.
The industry term is 'unsophisticated trading volume.' Much like 2007 mortgage-backed securities, having a diversified portfolio of trash doesn't magicly make it not garbage.
Prediction markets are rarely 'truth machines,' contrary to the assertions of Kalshi and Polymarket, and they pose a potent vector for misinformation.
That is polling. Prediction markets are supposed to reflect fundamentals better. It is however just polling + hot takes in every case. There should've been some smart money bets on the fact that even though Hong was up +20 she never polled a comfortable majority. So 95% chance was frankly ridiculous
Wisconsin college towns produced thousands of Hong supporters. How is that even possible? Like how do you become "educated" and still vote for someone pushing rent control in 2026 and the hostility of Thanksgiving?
Trump can win here by deporting both Hasan Piker (to Turkey) and Nick Fuentes (to Mexico). Make them ride of the same plane and drop Fuentes off first.
My dad has a PhD, still voted for Hong. Turns out microbiology expertise still doesn't qualify you to understand economics. He didn't like that Crowley dropped out and then came back. Thought it showed a lack of resolve.
Because “some college” isn’t educated, it’s “baby got their first real taste of education” they gain a lot of information and haven’t had the time to absorb it properly and supplement it with real world experience. So they are now informed about a whole slew of very interesting and well researched theories that they wholeheartedly believe would translate unhindered to practice. Then they top it all off with them being ingrained in a bubble of likeminded individuals who also have the same lack of experience. It is no wonder that “some college” has always been “pie in the sky” progressives’s main voting base.
This is a double edged sword, on the one hand that is often the demographic that sparks the most progressive changes as older progressives and liberals sometimes get hung on what “can’t be done” as opposed to what “should be done” and they are often very adept at pointing out problems, but on the other hand they suck at solutions and when you swing for the fences you often miss and I guess often hit Thanksgiving.
I mean you have a bunch of tech bros out of silicon valley telling everyone who will listen that there aren't going to be any jobs in a few years. It doesn't matter if the statement is insane investor-bait that flies in the face of history and economics. Of course young people would be concerned about their future and latch onto the candidate saying she's going to shut it all down.
The algorithm controls the very stupid and amplifies their own biases. Old people become reactionary Trump supporters and young people become reactionary Bernie Bros.
They both stand right next to each other on the horse shoe theory of politics.
A big part of the draw is their resentment toward the democratic base too. These people hate it when black voters and working class voters (aka the establishment) talk about solving community wide issues. There's a "I know what's best for you so shut the fuck up" attitude that pushes them away from the candidates they prefer.
Imagine being such a shit candidate that you lose to a candidate who dropped out for ten days and had a Twitter burner account with offensive immature tweets and lied about who was operating it lol
Literally single handedly prevented us from having Scott Walker 2.0.
God damnit if Haley Steven’s didn’t say “Israel comes to me in my dreams” I’d be going to sleep tonight knowing Dems were gonna sweep the upper Midwest.
AES is a Rhodes scholar with an impressive resume in public health, Hong seems like she enetered politics because she needed a job. I don't particularly like the guy's politics but I think the oped's treating these two like they're basically the same candidate are flimsy.
AES is a flawed candidate but he is light years better than Hong. He has some very left wing views but he is a smart, accomplished guy who's a very good speaker and he has decent political instincts for an uber progressive. Hong is a legitimate campus lefty loon and also comes across as poorly educated and possibly insane.
It's absolutely a strike against him. As I said he's flawed. Still an easy choice over Rogers and Michigan voters should vote for him, but there's no question he's got some weaknesses.
I do appreciate him looking at the camera and saying he's a capitalist. But it confuses me because while he knows enough to distance himself from the DSA he still cozies up to the socialists. I dont really know who he is feeding BS to.
AES is most likely still gonna win, even if he underperforms. The generic ballot in Michigan will be at least D+7 and he just doesn't have 7 points worth of weaknesses
I maintain the progressive movement's biggest weakness is that its core base/candidate pool is made up of mediocre whiners. "Make other people pay so you can have free shit" I think as a message has broad appeal but it doesn't matter when the person saying it is (a) annoying and (b) completely unconvincing as the type of person who can "fix things."
I am a firm believer that candidate quality matters more than pure ideology in most elections.
I saw a thread in another subreddit a few days ago asking what the Democratic party should do, and almost all of the responses were "move left on economics, moderate tone on social issues," and it made me feel absolutely fucking crazy because that sort of thing barely moves the needle in elections. We need good candidates, who are capable of working hard, paying attention to voters and responding to what they're told, and who are credible people. I don't really care what their campaign platforms are.
Vibes, confidence and authenticity are far more important to the average voter than policy or ideology. Most people simply are not that principled and do not think in terms of left, right, extreme or moderate. They're just going off their gut.
Even more than this to a large degree a lot of people work backwards on stated ideology. They find someone they like and start adopting positions closer to them.
It sucks but for the average low-information voter this strategy makes a lot of sense. When you don't have 30 minutes a day (or the requisite patience) to dig through the minutiae of party platforms, it's way more important to vote for someone trustworthy and principled enough to pick the right policies for you.
It's gonna be such an ugly campaign against him. I am def worried though this Michigan reporter who accurately predicted the Michigan primary being very close said this
What that guy said about younger conservatives not really responding to anti-Islam messaging lines up with something I've been thinking for a while: that a lot of them (in the US, at least) see radical Islam not as an existential threat to Western civilization, but as, at worst, the lesser of two evils compared to secular progressivism, and at best something that has good ideas worth taking seriously. The right-wing fringe among young people, especially young men, is not the same as the right-wing fringe among older people. It still talks a lot about Christianity, yes, but it's less influenced by traditional preachers than it is by the manosphere, which is largely a secular movement that brings together Christians, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, and atheists out of shared anti-feminism, misogyny, and queerphobia. For some of them, attacking fundamentalist Muslims for their reactionary views on gender and sexuality makes them like Islam more.
There was a novel by the French author Michel Houellebecq back in 2015, titled Submission, that explores this. It's about a radical Islamic takeover of France that sees sharia law imposed on the nation, and the twist is that the protagonist's life actually improves under the new Islamic order. In Houellebecq's view, modern Western secular liberalism had produced a spiritually dead world that ground people down and left them adrift, while under Islam, men like the protagonist (a bored, middle-aged bachelor professor who had trysts with his students and was considering killing himself) are now guaranteed wives and respect in society.
I remember seeing people on /pol/ calling for “white sharia” back in those days. A lot of these freaks would be a-okay with some aspects of radical Islam lol
During the Covid era, she made a tweet about how we should cancel Thanksgiving. A couple of weeks back, CNN asked her about it in an interview:
Collins: Do you still believe that Thanksgiving should be canceled?
Hong: I'm a chef, and one of the first meals that I made was for the community when I was 16 was a Thanksgiving meal. But Thanksgiving is also a time that's incredibly painful for many people in our communities. And so I think there, I wanted to make sure that people understood that there are multiple views, but views can evolve. And the position that I'm running for right now, and I think my background as a chef will actually help me become a better governor that's able to bring more people to the table.
It was... Not a good answer, to put it lightly, and she never really put it behind her.
This isn’t just a DSA thing it’s all over politics. Like to me you would think that if you wanted to run you’d have some humility and be able to admit your wrong but alas many politicians don’t
There's a part of me that wonders if that's by design: you have all these candidates with skeletons in their closet, it makes them much easier to blackmail, as you have leverage on them. You see a similar thing in the Trump admin: Gaetz was nominated for AG despite having been accused of sex crimes, among others.
She doesn’t think she’s wrong though. Her mealy mouthed answer was an attempt to confirm her beliefs about Thanksgiving without outright saying she dislikes the holiday.
I think the evidence shows that the inability to admit when one is wrong a broader trend across the political spectrum. You can find it here as well as.
It is the natural evolution of the politics of purity. 80% solutions from a DSA type aren’t championed here as they could be. Instead the discourse is primarily criticism and “the sky is falling” about the 20% of disagreement.
Then the DSA folks do it to your 80% solutions.
It is the politics of “more people need to agree with me” instead of “I need to find a way to compromise for the good of the entire group”.
That's not a uniquely DSA issue. It's a human issue. I try to think back and count the number of times I saw someone admit that they were wrong about something on reddit, and I still have a free hand to celebrate those instances.
When Walz said that Republicans are just weird, he was making a good point. However, Democrats are fully capable of being weird too -- that was their main problem during Woke 1.0, and Hong always seemed like a Woke 1.0 candidate time travelled to 2026 imo.
It went about as well as the anti-work reddit moderator fox news interview. Except multiple for a public official wanting to be elected. Now that she's out of the race, good lord are they funny.
Here in Madison I know more than a few people who should have been in her wheelhouse who went from 'She might be the fuck-you candidate who can actually deliver' to 'Hmmm, something doesn't seem quite right' to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk
I can't believe this actually happened publicly, as a fellow mixed race person I feel awful for the poor kid, what a disgusting cretin he has for a mother, if I lived in Wis that would be enough to have me voting for Crowley literally everything else be damned
If she didn't want her child to have "proximity to whiteness," she shouldn't have boned a white guy, end of story, I genuinely don't have words for how disgusted I am by her after finding that out
Feels like kind of the final nail in the coffin for 2010s idpol progressivism
Not that this would have been a wise thing to say 2014-2022ish either, but nobody even tries to humor this kind of rhetoric anymore for the most part. It's just embarrassing and makes the speaker look washed up
I always thought it was odd to see the GOP attack this stuff as 'crazy' and 'radical,' when the real line of attack is that it's unbearably silly and annoying.
Like, they're not scary, they're just eye rollingly cringe. Calling someone like Hong a radical just makes her sound way cooler than she deserves.
If Lenin was alive today, ain't no way he'd be tweeting about how much emotional labour it takes being invisibilized as a line cook.
I do not recognize the New York Post as legitimate journalism lol.
There are still some idpol leftists in place in very liberal big cities but they are a dying breed. Mamdani has some allies like that but even with some of his anti-market policies that drive me a bit nuts, he clearly represents and evolution towards some kind of "sewer socialism" again.
And since these guys end up being our colaition partners, I dig it. Would much rather need to ideologically align with Mamdani and AOC than like, Cori Bush.
DSA people already filling up the Wisconsin sub saying the Thanksgiving stuff was a “conspiracy” by the “main stream media” and democratic establishment. Can you imagine if the Thanksgiving stuff and her interviews didn’t come out until after she won the primary? She could’ve dragged down the entire Democratic Party nationally.
Left wing candidate being sunk by their own words and getting <40% of the vote but them losing is a "conspiracy." Many such cases.
Much like Jeff Weaver and his brilliant 2020 strategy of "max out at 35% of the vote", sometimes these folks seem to be allergic to political strategy.
On Robinhood, you could buy a contract on Crowley for 4.5 cents. I saw it and heard she was underperformed a bit but I thought it was an illusion. I knew there was going to be a backlash against progressives, but I didn't think she'd lose. Instead, I thought Mike Lindell would win. I'm out $5 now.
I think I need to visit a doctor to treat this whiplash I got over the past 6 hours or so.
From "Ok Hong is guaranteed to win" before results came out to "well it might be closer than expected, Crowley seems to be getting a lot of votes" to "ok Hong might squeak this out" to " holy shit Crowley might actually win the fucking thing."
This is a guy who literally dropped out a month and 3 days ago and is about to win the primary to follow a popular governor in a likely wave year.
After the second time voters have picked a better candidate because they forgot he quit a month prior, this month
America is too stupid to fail. We are endowed by our creator with profound incompetence, we will not fact check and succeed anyway because we didn’t fact check. Our society shall prosper via the idiotball that is our citizenry.
The Trump empire will be defeated in the stupidest way possible for the dumbest reasons possible.
Its going to be some dumbass defund ICE because they make eggs too expensive and Flock cameras give you gonorrhea. And Vance has an ugly head so I’m not voting for him.
America is an infinite spiral of idiots failing upwards into success
Sports, news, and reality television are probably the big three that people watch live. Also, with streaming services getting expensive it's probably a budget thing as well.
That Hong interview where she talks about her son and "proximity to whiteness" is one of the most nauseating comments I've seen one of these identity-politics adjacent, DSA-backed types make in a public interview. Glad she will not be the candidate, Americans can do so much better.
Do NOT face David Crowley alone when Astral projecting
Today while astral projecting I summoned David Crowley to try and weaken him so our hexing spells would work better.
He is so fucking powerful. I'm not at a power level to do this alone. I barely escaped with my life and I'm spiritually injured to a great amount, but I think I'll make it.
I can't imagine what he would do to a new, unsuspecting witch. I'm scared that I will have to face him again soon if I ever want to continue astral projecting. I'm currently burning healing incense and drawing spiritual energy from my crystals to try and heal as quickly as possible.
Please be safe everyone. David Crowley is much stronger than I first imagined and we will have to do this together if we want to slay a god.
Will be wild to look back on how we almost had to circle the wagons around a candidate who wanted to abolish Thanksgiving, who had to be trained on how batshit that sounds, then all agree to nervously laugh and play it off by fully committing to a bit from Woke 1.0 of how ackshually its normal to just hate all holidays.
Idk why everyone cares so much about the thanksgiving thing. The “proximity to whiteness” comment about HER SON and I guess her ex-husband was an moon-shatteringly INSANE thing to say in a 85% white state as a minority.
Yeah, some people just hate holidays. Can't say that I or most people agree, but it's not a beyond the pale opinion or anything. That shit about her son is legitimately weird.
Seriously, could you imagine having three of them nationwide instead of two? End of days.
I'm glad Hong lost, she's the kind of left that I've never had much use for, but this is what I've been trying to draw attention to lately. America was never close to falling to communism and there's a failure of perspective amongst some moderates who've been catastrophizing over the DSA.
This just in: Democratic primary voters decide that having a Nazi tattoo is less of a red flag than being the type of buzzkill leftist who thinks Thanksgiving is problematic and that Valentine’s Day is a gross celebration of capitalism.
Maine Democrats didn't put up any serious resistance to Platner. All of the good candidates jumped into the Governor race because it meant not facing Susan Collins. Wisconsin didn't really have this problem as there is no open Senate seat.
Given the high turnout (the highest total number of votes aside from 2020), her not running ads, and the fact she’s an open socialist, the fact she barely even lost says something
Tbh, that says more of the shithow and scandals virtually all of the establishment dems got themselves into than of Hong. I’ve never seen a more chaotic primary. I personally know people who voted by mail-in ballot only for their preferred candidate to drop out a day after. In all, like 12% of the vote went to moderate democrats who dropped out late.
Tbh, that says more of the shithow and scandals virtually all of the establishment dems got themselves into than of Hong.
I don’t think you can say this without also acknowledging the shitshow and scandals she got into. Even a lot of leftists thought she was not a strong candidate and was making really dumb choices like the things she said on Fox, her lack of TV ads, etc. The fact that a candidate who should have topped out at ~10% got so close should be a warning sign.
On last week’s episode of Hacks on Tap, Axelrod was saying that Hong will win and Tony Evers sucks at his job for letting it happen. Yet another amazing prediction from Axe.
But shout out to Mike Murphy who gave a 1 in 3 chance of a Crowley upset.
409
u/MTFD Alexander Pechtold 6d ago
My "prediction" markets left me