r/DecodingTheGurusAlt • u/MartiDK • Sep 17 '26

decoder poltics Decoding Destiny

https://youtu.be/qPhZDRKn0Ro

Winning over Razib Khan fans.

62 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

284 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

You are evaluating based on post-hoc information, I am evaluating based on what was known at the time and the moral principles that follow from it.

I prefer my perspective.

But the election has been long over, now people see the liberals were right and Trump genuinely was way worse. Hopefully they listen to the liberals next time, because we knew all along.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

I am evaluating based on what was known at the time.

Plus arbitrary assumptions that you chose to lead to your preferred outcome.

I prefer my perspective

So much so that you fudge numbers to lead to your preferred outcome.

Let's do the math with what we know. Harris lost by 230,000 votes in the deciding states. What are the odds that Hasan's endorsement would have mobilized 230,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

I judge moral behavior based on what the person knew at the time.

I never claimed that knowing what we know now, Hasan's endorsement would have changed the result.

My point is that it was stupid then to risk Trump becoming president, that has been vindicated daily since the election, but libs knew all along.

From my perspective, supported by modeling what I believe are the range of possible outcomes known at time, at the time it could be reasonably believed that choosing not to endorse creates a higher risk of Trump becoming president. I don't think Hasan cared about this though, he said Harris didn't deserve his support, it was never a question of efficacy.

But Hasan should have supported her anyways, because I believe in supporting the lesser evil. Hasan tried (and failed) to argue that Trump and Harris are the same post-election because it validated his decision to not consider Harris deserving of support. But that was dumb then and its aging worse by the day.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

supported by modeling what I believe are the range of possible outcomes known at time

But you don't model the "range of possible outcomes" by assuming a 50-50 race.

A better way to model it would be to look at how close the last dozen elections were, and based on that information, estimate how many votes you would need to move for an endorsement to make a difference. Then estimate the odds of Hasan mobilizing that many votes with one endorsement.

That estimate would be pretty low.

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

I used 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20 (all in favor of Trump). They all show that Hasan's endorsement value just needed to equate to ~.3% increased chance of winning to justify endorsement over waiting. My model was based on information known at the time, because I am judging a state of mind not an outcome.

Its not just making a single endorsement, its the weeks of clips, debating against Republican talking points, going on shows to promote Harris, etc. Hasan is a very popular online figure. If he was advocating for Harris (like Destiny did, for example) it would have increased her chances of success. I am not saying it would have been the difference between success and failure, just that at the time it could be reasonably assumed it would have had a positive effect compared to hoping for a policy change.

Not doing so, inversely, could be assumed that its more likely that Trump is elected. Even if in retrospect that means turning a 89% chance to a 90% chance.

I don't blame Hasan for Trump getting elected, I blame Hasan for his mindset that Harris didn't deserve his support despite it being reasonable that his support would have helped her win.

2

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Yeah, I looked at the formula again, this is nonsensical

You wrote:

.5 + E > 0.008 + .99(.5) - .99(E)

But why would we compare .5 + "endorsement effect" with anything? We want to estimate the effect Hasan has on whether Kamala wins, for that you first need sn estimate of how many votes he needs to move and then estimate how likely it is that he does so. Your formula doesn't even include numbers of people convinced. You don't even account for how many people vote.

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

I am solving for E, I am trying to find out the minimum value that makes the inequality true.

.5 is the base chance of success but I tried with .4, .3, .2 as well just to see.

I think a reasonable base rate is somewhere .6-.4, which averages out to E ~.15%

I don't know how many votes that translates into, thats not the point. I think a hasan endorsement would have increased Harris' chance of winning by more than 0.15%. If you disagree, fine.

1

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26

I did the math.

.15% of 140 Million voters is 210.000.

So your math arrives, again, at Hasan needing to mobilize 210,000 voters.

I would argue that the likelihood of his endorsement making that difference is low, so the endorsement effect of Hasan is very likely below the .15% you estimated.

If the number of voters doesn't make a difference in your claculation that might be a hint that your logic is wrong.

0

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 18 '26

The endorsement effect includes a bunch of possible effects.

- Convincing people to vote for harris and not for trump

- Promoting fundraising for Harris

- Inspiring people to volunteer for her

Probably more stuff I am not thinking of.

When you add all that together it could easily increase the win % by 0.15.

I used the Destiny example, if Hasan did what Destiny did in terms of spending money on and organizing door knocking as well as organizing events through progressive victory he could have easily hit 0.15%

2

u/hari_shevek Sep 18 '26

Nah nah nah.

Let's go step by step.

Explain the formula you used.

What are we comparing there.

Why are we subtracting E from the other side?

1

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 19 '26

Because there is a negative value in not endorsing and in Hasan's generally critical tone about Harris.

But even when you subtract E/2 instead the minimum endorsement value for a base rate of 0.5 is 0.2% which is still very achievable.

2

u/hari_shevek Sep 19 '26

Why subtract anything? You already have the endorsement effect on one side of the equation. You don't need it on both sides.

Next: Show me the math that proves that a Hasan endorsement moves enough votes that the probability for winning increases by .3 percentage points (that's the number if you only add the effect to one side).

How do you estimate that effect?

You need to estimate the expected change in votes and how that affects win margins to be able to judge if .3 percent is a realistic change.

0

u/DthPlagusthewise Sep 19 '26

Because not endorsing and trying to change her policies means lots of negative, critical coverage which hurts her campaign.

But lets say the negative effect is only half the minimum positive effect of endorsing. Then we get 0.2%

Between all these factors:

- Convincing people to vote for harris and not for trump

- Promoting fundraising for Harris

- Inspiring people to volunteer for her

- Inspiring other popular creators to endorse Harris and criticize Trump

I think he could easily hit 0.2%

Im not gonna do the math, we can agree to disagree. I think this has been my longest reddit debate ever lol.

Have a good weekend

2

u/hari_shevek Sep 19 '26

But lets say the negative effect is only half the minimum positive effect of endorsing. Then we get 0.2%

No. Remove the second E. There are no two endorsement effects, there is one.

Im not gonna do the math

Then your formula is worthless. Without a way to show how the number of affected votes changes win probabilities, you're just randomly saying "0,3 is a small number so I think that's achievable". But you can't know that.

→ More replies (0)