I haven't seen the numbers. I have read that they do this for a few evil reasons.
I have so little faith in polls anymore. I know Silver and others try to patch over the shortcomings by analyzing multiple polls and running weighted probability equations on them and so on. But I always think of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
And of course, probabilities are just that: probabilities. So if they say candidate X has a 75% chance to beat candidate Y, that means candidate Y still wins 25% of the time. Which is much higher than we intuit when we just look at the 75%. Anybody who's rolled a 1d4 in D&D knows that 1 will come up more than we'd like.
Allan Lichtman's analysis is more interesting to me. He's been right 9 out of 10 times. Which certainly doesn't mean he'll be right this time. But I think it's cool that he ignores polls. I wonder if his methodology, while very clever, may not be up to date for 2024 with all the weird shit going on with judges, electors, etc. The "meta issues", if you will, around his "Keys to the White House."
I hope you're right!
The Demiurge. Not that I like the Demiurge itself. But explaining the human condition as being a product of bad design appeals to me. I don't believe the myth and I'm not religious. But as far as myths go, that one is my fave.
I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is there is a "tax accounting lobby" that works hard to prevent any measures to simplify it, because they would go out of business. Intuit and others.
Interesting that they are laying off managers while "moving towards more automation". I'm guessing they mean draconian employee-monitoring hardware and software installed in the vehicles, warehouses, repair facilities, etc.
Love the meme but JFC I wish they would just send us a simple invoice (or refund) every year. You know, the way adult nations do things.
A lot of people made fun of those theories and sarcastically pretended to believe in them. Maybe that's what you remember. Our human memories are not very reliable.
Maybe not exactly what you asked for, but I think these two might be close contenders:
Trump was abysmal... and it frustrates me that it probably didn't hurt him all that much. Yes, he looked like an angry incoherent buffoon and a spoiled pouting baby. He probably lost a few votes.
But that same performance from anyone else would have tanked their campaign. If Harris had been even slightly "off" or had a cold or made any significant mistakes, that's all the fucking MSM would be talking about today. Thank the stars she completely kicked his ass and looked good doing it.
But it's batshit that Trump can be so unhinged and still be in the running. He talks like the idiots who vote for him. His freakshow antics are good for ratings. That's it. That's the magic formula. It's dumb, it's dangerous, it's simple, and it works.
It's almost enough to make me think citizens should have to pass a basic civics exam to vote. I am not really there yet, but I can see some good arguments for it.
"The dog ate my homework and then one of THOSE PEOPLE ate the dog."
I'm guessing the content offering algorithms are looking at your IP, browser profile, etc. and throwing stuff at you that it assumes you and "people in your area" want to see. Even with brand new accounts, they always try to figure this stuff out. It often gets it wrong, but that never stops them from trying.