Trump will win!

Discussions
User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeff_36 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:12 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:. . . There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. . . .
"Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves: ‘They are saying they did nothing wrong, which is ridiculous,’ one Democrat says."
You have a point but Hilary was not the problem. Se was well qualified to be President and did a great job of contrasting herself favorably with The Buffoon. She crushed all three debates, was endorsed by all the papers - including the highly prestigious Economist - and was favored by all experts. Why she lost is a mystery and will remain so forever. I agree that she would have lost to an more capable GOP opponent, but Trump seemed at times to be giving her the race.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:38 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:One fascinating thing I've followed all day is the enormous amount of protest we are seeing.
I thought this is what we would get from Trump supporters the day after, the script flipped, of course.

I find it somewhat annoying with the Californians talking about secession and others talking about the electoral college changing their mind and putting Clinton in the White House. The Civil War settled the one 150 years ago and the other isn't going to happen.
really?!?! I'm in So Cal and I haven't heard of it. but I've been at, ugh, work all day. time to google...
Work? What's that?

:D

I haven't gotten a thing done all week. I had Monday off and I have tomorrow off for Veteran's Day.

Needless to say I've been distracted since Tuesday.
:D
yeah, a lot to be distracted with!

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:41 am

Oh, I also received my copy of Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949.
So, many distractions!!!!
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:47 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: The HuffPo folks insist that their model was right (98%+ chance of Clinton's winning) but that bad data came in.
Yeah, the operation was a success but the patient died. violently.
Statistical Mechanic wrote: I would suggest they look at data, models, reliance on polls, etc - everything they can think of. They were incredibly far off. It is ironic being misled by the supposedly scientific analysis!
i love it when people believe their models even when the data don't fit. extreme narcissism. be great to have a 1:1 conversation with these 'scientists.' you're hitting a lot of my pet peeves here! lol!

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:59 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here
Allan Lichtman's model for predicting elections
yes, i've heard of this guy. he must be smart... with a hairdo like that.

but his model is the opposite of what the HuffPo was doing, if i understand this correctly. he's approaching it more like a statistician... model doesn't necessarily have to make total sense as long as it predicts well. and this is fine if you're only after prediction and don't really care to understand why (which i think is the point here). i mean, if you could use the price of kumquats to accurately predict election winners why not? so we have 3 scenarios:
1. model makes sense and predicts well
2. model doesn't make sense but predicts well
3. model makes sense but predicts poorly

1 is best of course, 2 is useful. would anyone choose 3? i guess HuffPo would.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:01 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Oh, I also received my copy of Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949.
So, many distractions!!!!
i almost forgot this is a HD forum!

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:32 am

Tallboy wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Oh, I also received my copy of Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949.
So, many distractions!!!!
i almost forgot this is a HD forum!
Yes, ironically this thread was started by a Holocaust denier.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:37 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:. . . There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. . . .
"Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves: ‘They are saying they did nothing wrong, which is ridiculous,’ one Democrat says."
You have a point but Hilary was not the problem. Se was well qualified to be President and did a great job of contrasting herself favorably with The Buffoon. She crushed all three debates, was endorsed by all the papers - including the highly prestigious Economist - and was favored by all experts. Why she lost is a mystery and will remain so forever. I agree that she would have lost to an more capable GOP opponent, but Trump seemed at times to be giving her the race.
Hillary was a problem. But the problem was bigger than her. It was how her circle saw the election, the messages they conveyed, and their campaign strategy. They fundamentally misread the election. But they did so in keeping with who the Clintons are and have been, what they represent and their vision of the world.

First, recall that Hillary and Bill left the White House in '00 disgrace, in such disgrace that Al Gore wanted nothing to do with them for his run in 2000. Since then, the Clintons made their way back by developing and exploiting connections with the rich and powerful. But the Clinton legacy was always problematic, involving NAFTA, which Bill had forced on the party; pushing bank and corporate friendly policy without even a nod to the consequences for working people; getting rich from paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies; forming a tight alliance with high tech companies; making friends with Hollywood types and celebrities - and more importantly big money and lobbyists; collaborating with dictators; and developing ties and taking donations from the corporate types who ravage climate and communities.

Policies of the Clinton presidency - deregulation, repeal of Glass Steagall, risky mortgage practices, an increasing wealth gap - were at the core of the 2008 meltdown.

But Bill had a facility and smoothness to work his way through the reality and create a charismatic, open, worker friendly veneer - Hillary had no such capabilities. She was all in with the corporate, meritocratic vision - and hunkered down behind the protective walls of her inner circle and rich donors.

As secretary of state, Hillary’s signature accomplishment was the debacle in Libya. Along with her private email server and Foundation conflicts of interest.

In ’16, she had the genius idea to replay her losing ’08 strategy: zero outreach to the middle class, no clear message, an offer of experience, resume and competence. In a change election. Worse, she ran on not being Trump, when, clearly, a sizable number of voters liked Trump. She tried to disqualify him in part because he's a misogynist - which then begged the question how Bill was qualified! On top of which, the combination of “Trump is not fit” and “I get things done” left voters cold and without any understanding of what things she wanted to get done. The slogan “Love trumps hate” virtually admitted her lack of positive vision.

During the campaign, she never got out from under the emails, the Foundation, the hacks, the Wasserman Schultz affair, weariness with the Clintons. She utterly failed to connect to the voters who drove this election. She was unable to develop a crisp, clear response to the many "scandals" that followed her. Consider that she won the nomination under the cloud of a criminal investigation.

Her overall strategy - the inclusive coalition - didn’t work because it left out too many voters and failed to motivate even its core. She was still trying to give paid speeches to bankers as late as the NH primary. She had contempt for the messages - and voters - of the Sanders campaign and refused to learn from her tough primary. Rather than learn from Sanders' campaign, with its appeal to middle class and white voters, Clinton dismissed it with BS about Bernie Bros, sexism, and imputed racism. iShe barely campaigned in “blue” rust-belt states until it was too late. Her campaign actually fought with Ed Rendell over committing resources and time to Pennsylvania - because it was supposedly in the bag. She developed no economic message - this, from someone associated with Bill’s ’92 campaign (“It’s the economy, stupid”) running in a time of economic insecurity and difficulty.

Clinton took for granted voters she absolutely needed to come out in force - African Americans, rust belt, “the blue wall.”

There was no aspirational message from her campaign, no rallying cry, no real leadership. She was condescending and smug, certain that her brand of global, neoliberalism and meritocracy would win. Because she's smarter and better and surrounded with real experts and so on. She failed to deal with tough problems head on - Obamacare and the Middle East, to name two. Her policies were detailed, intricate, incrementalist - but without any overall framing and thus poorly communicated. Finally, she was never not fluid and human in campaigning, her “personality” reinforcing the perception she was out of touch and underscoring negative views of her trustworthiness.

The debates didn’t matter that much in the end. Nor did the convention. The Comey letter crushed whatever chance her superior funding and organization gave her. Celebrity, newspaper, expert and other endorsements only fed the revulsion so many people have for the elites - and her - a revulsion she never intuited. Running wholeheartedly as the voice of 30-40 years of Clintonism, she placed herself in the position of representing nearly everything wrong with the status quo. Accolades from “prestigious” publications and experts were precisely her problem - she never really connected with the possible Trump voter - or even her own core voter. Too many people were tired of, or didn't trust, decades of Clintonism.

Her candidacy was an epochal blunder from start to finish. The party was basically nuts - well, myopic, complacent and divorced from reality - to have her run in the first place.

Other than that, I liked the opera.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:40 am

Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here
Allan Lichtman's model for predicting elections
yes, i've heard of this guy. he must be smart... with a hairdo like that.

but his model is the opposite of what the HuffPo was doing, if i understand this correctly. he's approaching it more like a statistician... model doesn't necessarily have to make total sense as long as it predicts well. and this is fine if you're only after prediction and don't really care to understand why (which i think is the point here). i mean, if you could use the price of kumquats to accurately predict election winners why not? so we have 3 scenarios:
1. model makes sense and predicts well
2. model doesn't make sense but predicts well
3. model makes sense but predicts poorly

1 is best of course, 2 is useful. would anyone choose 3? i guess HuffPo would.
He would argue that he is rooting his model in history - what has driven results empirically through many elections. (He co-authored a recent book on FDR and the Jews during the '30s and '40s which my wife liked quite a bit.)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:16 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Probably need to "project," insofar as we try to project outcomes, using a combination of polling and other information (e.g., economic situation). Crazy but true: whenever I trusted my gut feelings, I thought Trump could/might win; when I tried being reasonable and using polling data, I was led astray. Another bad miss for pollsters. (In my worklife, we were always careful not to "believe" in survey data in terms of projecting results; we used it more subjectively, to understand if messages were being communicated and so forth. Might not be bad to think more like that in politics too, at least for now . . . )
right, but that puts us back where we started. polls are supposed to be objective, but your subjective opinion turned out more accurate. and the crazier the situation (and this was crazy) the more complicated the analysis and the more likely polling will fail.
too many subtleties here
Allan Lichtman's model for predicting elections
yes, i've heard of this guy. he must be smart... with a hairdo like that.

but his model is the opposite of what the HuffPo was doing, if i understand this correctly. he's approaching it more like a statistician... model doesn't necessarily have to make total sense as long as it predicts well. and this is fine if you're only after prediction and don't really care to understand why (which i think is the point here). i mean, if you could use the price of kumquats to accurately predict election winners why not? so we have 3 scenarios:
1. model makes sense and predicts well
2. model doesn't make sense but predicts well
3. model makes sense but predicts poorly

1 is best of course, 2 is useful. would anyone choose 3? i guess HuffPo would.
He would argue that he is rooting his model in history - what has driven results empirically through many elections. (He co-authored a recent book on FDR and the Jews during the '30s and '40s which my wife liked quite a bit.)
right. his model appears to be data driven; he determined what it is by what variables fit the data best. whether the variables make sense is less important that whether the model works. in his case, many if not all the variables can be rationalized to make sense after the fact, and provide some interesting insights. you would have to have some incredible insight to have chosen those variables before seeing the data. HuffPo, it appears, chose variables before seeing data and when the data didn't fit, claimed the data was wrong :roll:

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:17 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:. . . There is no use to personify the failure. Hilary was not alone, she was part of a system and a logic. . . .
"Clinton aides blame loss on everything but themselves: ‘They are saying they did nothing wrong, which is ridiculous,’ one Democrat says."
You have a point but Hilary was not the problem. Se was well qualified to be President and did a great job of contrasting herself favorably with The Buffoon. She crushed all three debates, was endorsed by all the papers - including the highly prestigious Economist - and was favored by all experts. Why she lost is a mystery and will remain so forever. I agree that she would have lost to an more capable GOP opponent, but Trump seemed at times to be giving her the race.
Hillary was a problem. But the problem was bigger than her. It was how her circle saw the election, the messages they conveyed, and their campaign strategy. They fundamentally misread the election. But they did so in keeping with who the Clintons are and have been, what they represent and their vision of the world.

First, recall that Hillary and Bill left the White House in '00 disgrace, in such disgrace that Al Gore wanted nothing to do with them for his run in 2000. Since then, the Clintons made their way back by developing and exploiting connections with the rich and powerful. But the Clinton legacy was always problematic, involving NAFTA, which Bill had forced on the party; pushing bank and corporate friendly policy without even a nod to the consequences for working people; getting rich from paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies; forming a tight alliance with high tech companies; making friends with Hollywood types and celebrities - and more importantly big money and lobbyists; collaborating with dictators; and developing ties and taking donations from the corporate types who ravage climate and communities.

Policies of the Clinton presidency - deregulation, repeal of Glass Steagall, risky mortgage practices, an increasing wealth gap - were at the core of the 2008 meltdown.

But Bill had a facility and smoothness to work his way through the reality and create a charismatic, open, worker friendly veneer - Hillary had no such capabilities. She was all in with the corporate, meritocratic vision - and hunkered down behind the protective walls of her inner circle and rich donors.

As secretary of state, Hillary’s signature accomplishment was the debacle in Libya. Along with her private email server and Foundation conflicts of interest.

In ’16, she had the genius idea to replay her losing ’08 strategy: zero outreach to the middle class, no clear message, an offer of experience, resume and competence. In a change election. Worse, she ran on not being Trump, when, clearly, a sizable number of voters liked Trump. She tried to disqualify him in part because he's a misogynist - which then begged the question how Bill was qualified! On top of which, the combination of “Trump is not fit” and “I get things done” left voters cold and without any understanding of what things she wanted to get done. The slogan “Love trumps hate” virtually admitted her lack of positive vision.

During the campaign, she never got out from under the emails, the Foundation, the hacks, the Wasserman Schultz affair, weariness with the Clintons. She utterly failed to connect to the voters who drove this election. She was unable to develop a crisp, clear response to the many "scandals" that followed her. Consider that she won the nomination under the cloud of a criminal investigation.

Her overall strategy - the inclusive coalition - didn’t work because it left out too many voters and failed to motivate even its core. She was still trying to give paid speeches to bankers as late as the NH primary. She had contempt for the messages - and voters - of the Sanders campaign and refused to learn from her tough primary. Rather than learn from Sanders' campaign, with its appeal to middle class and white voters, Clinton dismissed it with BS about Bernie Bros, sexism, and imputed racism. iShe barely campaigned in “blue” rust-belt states until it was too late. Her campaign actually fought with Ed Rendell over committing resources and time to Pennsylvania - because it was supposedly in the bag. She developed no economic message - this, from someone associated with Bill’s ’92 campaign (“It’s the economy, stupid”) running in a time of economic insecurity and difficulty.

Clinton took for granted voters she absolutely needed to come out in force - African Americans, rust belt, “the blue wall.”

There was no aspirational message from her campaign, no rallying cry, no real leadership. She was condescending and smug, certain that her brand of global, neoliberalism and meritocracy would win. Because she's smarter and better and surrounded with real experts and so on. She failed to deal with tough problems head on - Obamacare and the Middle East, to name two. Her policies were detailed, intricate, incrementalist - but without any overall framing and thus poorly communicated. Finally, she was never not fluid and human in campaigning, her “personality” reinforcing the perception she was out of touch and underscoring negative views of her trustworthiness.

The debates didn’t matter that much in the end. Nor did the convention. The Comey letter crushed whatever chance her superior funding and organization gave her. Celebrity, newspaper, expert and other endorsements only fed the revulsion so many people have for the elites - and her - a revulsion she never intuited. Running wholeheartedly as the voice of 30-40 years of Clintonism, she placed herself in the position of representing nearly everything wrong with the status quo. Accolades from “prestigious” publications and experts were precisely her problem - she never really connected with the possible Trump voter - or even her own core voter. Too many people were tired of, or didn't trust, decades of Clintonism.

Her candidacy was an epochal blunder from start to finish. The party was basically nuts - well, myopic, complacent and divorced from reality - to have her run in the first place.

Other than that, I liked the opera.
you should submit this as an op-ed. very well stated.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:36 am

Thought experiment: if the US had no third-term prohibition, and Obama had run instead of Clinton, would he have beaten Trump?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:45 am

Always remember, and never forget: Hillary won the popular vote. But the system is rigged to favor the empty states filled as it is with societal rejects of various sorts (sarcasm took me there...OK...independent thinkers who think they made it on their own) leading to a constant over representation of conservative mindsets on most issues of the day.

I see Trump as nominated a science denying Fossil Industry shill to head up the EPA. (or environmental policy?==https://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/ ... lashdot%29) === so pulling out of the Paris Accords is in the running for the first thing Trump does on taking office. Supposedly, Congress is going to add the replacement healthcare plan as part of terminating Obamacare. When done.... it will be great comfort that people without money will be able to buy insurance cross state lines and not have pesky malpractice attorneys denying them their physicians of choice.

Great days ahead.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:52 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Thought experiment: if the US had no third-term prohibition, and Obama had run instead of Clinton, would he have beaten Trump?
Odds are yes. Trump did not "win" as much as Clinton did not turn out the same voters as had Obama even in his weaker second go. Obama was inherently more the anti-Trump vote, witnout the Hillary baggage, without ever having to say it. The biggest negative: how could he stand for change when he showed he could not overcome Republican opposition to his programs?

So....it would have been close but in a world where we see that Hillary failed...of course any other choice would have a better chance.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Always remember, and never forget: Hillary won the popular vote. But the system is rigged to favor the empty states filled as it is with societal rejects of various sorts (sarcasm took me there...OK...independent thinkers who think they made it on their own) leading to a constant over representation of conservative mindsets on most issues of the day.

I see Trump as nominated a science denying Fossil Industry shill to head up the EPA. (or environmental policy?==https://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/ ... lashdot%29) === so pulling out of the Paris Accords is in the running for the first thing Trump does on taking office. Supposedly, Congress is going to add the replacement healthcare plan as part of terminating Obamacare. When done.... it will be great comfort that people without money will be able to buy insurance cross state lines and not have pesky malpractice attorneys denying them their physicians of choice.

Great days ahead.
I have a bit of a different take on this. Presidential elections in the US aren't, as we know, decided on popular vote. Before the election, Dems were sure that the electoral college, with the blue wall, gave them a built-in advantage and were generally just fine with that - and Trump was excoriating the electoral college (e.g., in '12 when rumors flew on election night that Romney had won the popular vote, Trump tweeted, “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” - all invented spelling Trump’s - and “More votes equals a loss….revolution!”) Both parties know the rules, and both built campaigns to win given the rules. Clinton managed to lose by shedding 6 million votes AND destroying the so-called blue wall in the process. These are really major accomplishments, not easily achieved. I've called her this before: she's like a cooler in Vegas.

That said, I don't like the electoral college system either, or the Senate for that matter, which is far worse, because as the country has urbanized and as population has shifted to massive urban corridors, both the electoral college and Senate do magnify the voices of states with sparse population, most of them with very different outlooks and political perspectives than the large urban areas. We have a federal system, fine, but rural states should not have an outsized voice in determining national policy for a largely urban country.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:06 pm

. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:11 pm

Stat Mech: I don't see any difference between your statement and mine. I must be right?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5064
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Trump will win!

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:25 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Thought experiment: if the US had no third-term prohibition, and Obama had run instead of Clinton, would he have beaten Trump?
probably.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:30 pm

@bobbo: We're not saying exactly the same thing, no.

This difference: I would not put it that the system is "rigged" - "rigging" implies someone setting up a process that's unfair and designed to favor a certain outcome and disadvantage certain people. The electoral college under some circumstances can actually favor the Dems - but what it doesn't do is reflect majority will all the time. Also, the electoral college is a relic of a different time, not a contrivance rigged to favor conservatives. Where we probably do agree is that in 2 recent presidential elections a (slim) minority vote for the more conservative candidate resulted in an electoral college victory. That's worrisome. But, if Clinton had received not many more votes in MI, WI, PA and/or FL, she would have won. Hypothetically, with the popular vote so close, if turnout in CA was depressed for some reason, or Trump ran up even bigger, not much bigger, margins in some deep red states, Clinton could have won with fewer popular votes.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:51 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:@bobbo: We're not saying exactly the same thing, no.

This difference: I would not put it that the system is "rigged" - "rigging" implies someone setting up a process that's unfair and designed to favor a certain outcome and disadvantage certain people.
Well, I'm going on pure memory here....but...the EC was created by our Founding Fathers, principally Hamilton, because they did not trust the impulses of a majority mob. The electorate is only allowed to vote for Electors who can thereafter vote for anyone they want to. A check and balance if you will against populism. Its unfair if you think the popular vote should control.....so I do. If the EC could be comprised of some sort on nonpartisan wise group I could be for that....assuming the EC would then choose neither Trump nor Clinton but some other third party? BUT that is fantasy. So--the favored certain outcome is to deny popularity just as it does and disadvantages people who have that popularity. JUST AS IT IS DESIGNED TO DO.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:The electoral college under some circumstances can actually favor the Dems - but what it doesn't do is reflect majority will all the time.
It "can" but doesn't. When was the last time the Republican won the popular vote and the EC gave us a Democrat? No need to google: its irrelevant.

Statistical Mechanic wrote:but what it doesn't do is reflect majority will all the time.
This may be definitional, but by structure and design it does not "reflect" majority will EVER. Such instances are by coincidence.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:59 pm

See we disagree. I won't bother replying as I've already explained my view.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:11 pm

I disagree that we disagree which is why you haven't shown the disagreement. You used the words, but the mechanism you identified shows no difference....as I specifically stated.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:18 pm

Well, you get there by disregarding the points of disagreement, some of which you yourself mention. Jesus, you are tiresome.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:49 pm

It takes two to be disagreeable and tiresome. We agree again!
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5544
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Monster » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:35 pm

I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:51 pm

Ok, enough of this. I am sick of winning. Already.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:56 pm

Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
No, it isn't. It is some people protesting - probably, judging from my city, the protesters are not liberals or Democrats at all. Most of them.

In one or two cases the protesters heeded Trump's calls from 2012 to take to the streets and revolt.

It's really not that big a deal. Attacking and beating up people because they "look" Muslim or Jewish or whatever is a big deal. But until Trump & Co. ban it, the right to protest is protected by the Constitution. Just as people who despise Trump and his politics have to deal with his winning, others will have to deal with people being pissed off about it. I mean, seriously. This is what you complain about when the global climate, Social Security, job safety, Medicare and Medicaid, constitutional rights, war and aggression, widening wealth inequality, Roe v Wade, and much, much more are on the line?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:57 pm

Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
I'm anti-Trump, hoping for the best, but noticing first thing he has done is consider if not appoint a Science Denying Big Fossil shill to run EPA. That is simply not good. He's got Wall Street insiders lined up for the Banking and Economy sectors (could not do worse than Obama though==>choosing from the same pile of crap).

...............but I frankly don't understand at all the riot/protest in the street regarding Trump. I mean jeeze: they are acting just like Republicans: against the President before he even does anything. That reveals a "negative mind set" even if I do say so myself.

The proven prescient Michael Moore said Morning Joe that Trump will get impeached because he is such a narcissist and crooked businssman that he will violate the law just because he thinks he can or should.... and he won't get away with it. I hope that doesn't happen..... as someone needs to keep Pence in check.

Ha, ha.........we went from a basket of deplorables.... to a gubment of one.===>looks like, but I'll hold my breath. I wonder if a new thread on "What Trump actually Does" would be worthwhile?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by NathanC » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:02 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
No, it isn't. It is some people protesting - probably, judging from my city, the protesters are not liberals or Democrats at all. Most of them.

In one or two cases the protesters heeded Trump's calls from 2012 to take to the streets and revolt.

It's really not that big a deal. Attacking and beating up people because they "look" Muslim or Jewish or whatever is a big deal. But until Trump & Co. ban it, the right to protest is protected by the Constitution. Just as people who despise Trump and his politics have to deal with his winning, others will have to deal with people being pissed off about it. I mean, seriously. This is what you complain about when the global climate, Social Security, job safety, Medicare and Medicaid, constitutional rights, war and aggression, widening wealth inequality, Roe v Wade, and much, much more are on the line?
I don't blame the protesters, honestly. I read one such account, of an Asian American Cosplayer who, when she arrived at LAX, was harassed by some douchebag at immigration. The douchebag even had the gall to question her American Citizenship because she didn't "look" American. The irony was that the guy was a Russian American immigrant. I'm also Asian-American, and I'm quite lucky not to have had to deal with any of that {!#%@} when I went to Canada earlier this year. I have several relatives living in the States, and also some friends who immigrated legally. I am so going to freak out if any of this {!#%@} happens to me or my loved ones.

Trump didn't create this, but it's a fact that he and his campaign stoked it and rode it to victory. They are real people, and you can bet that with Trump winning, they're going to start carrying out their horseshit in the open more often. The way I see it, the Reason Trump supporters aren't rioting is because won't "need" to: they might have the power of the state and the fed behind them soon enough.

Given the discussion forum we are in, the following analogy is quite appropriate: This is a lot like blaming the Jews for "Declaring war on Germany" via boycotts, while ignoring the fact that these boycotts were in response to increasing Antisemitic persecution and rhetoric.

[Edited to clarify]
Last edited by NathanC on Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:12 pm

Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
I have no issue with protesting, I have an issue with property destruction and violating the law. Anyone who breaks the law deserves prosecution and time.

But, do it peacefully and you have my support.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:14 pm

Trump recommended Second Amendment Remedies. Not free speech. No false equivalencies.

I recall Trumps rhetoric on Mexicans, then Muslims, then "Chine-ah" but not Asians. No doubt... just farther down the list?

We don't know the full Bloom of Trump. It will be ....................... "interesting" ..... however it goes.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:16 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have no issue with protesting, I have an issue with property destruction and violating the law. Anyone who breaks the law deserves prosecution and time.

But, do it peacefully and you have my support.
How about the validity of whats being protested? "Not my President" "Never Trump". Sounds like birtherism to me. At least let him F*ck Up before you riot......and yes, in Oregon they rioted. Only saving grace: Police didn't take the bait so the violence was held in check.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by NathanC » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have no issue with protesting, I have an issue with property destruction and violating the law. Anyone who breaks the law deserves prosecution and time.

But, do it peacefully and you have my support.
How about the validity of whats being protested? "Not my President" "Never Trump". Sounds like birtherism to me. At least let him F*ck Up before you riot......and yes, in Oregon they rioted. Only saving grace: Police didn't take the bait so the violence was held in check.
Birtherism is a silly and racist conspiracy theory that Barrack Obama is not a "real American" because he was born in Kenya, along with continuous moving goalposts about his "birth certificates". "Not My President/Never Trump" is a statement that President Elect Donald Trump's "values" - real or imagined - are not the values of the person saying it. One is an attack on the Person, the other is an attack on the values.

I don't like Riots either. But given what's at stake for some of them, I don't blame em'.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:22 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have no issue with protesting, I have an issue with property destruction and violating the law. Anyone who breaks the law deserves prosecution and time.

But, do it peacefully and you have my support.
How about the validity of whats being protested? "Not my President" "Never Trump". Sounds like birtherism to me. At least let him F*ck Up before you riot......and yes, in Oregon they rioted. Only saving grace: Police didn't take the bait so the violence was held in check.
I don't care what's "valid," my statement speaks for itself. I expected this from Trump supporters if Clinton won, I don't care. Do what you want and do it peacefully. Break the law and you deserve prosecution.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18586
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Trump will win!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:28 pm

OK---you don't care if an issue is valid or invalid. Check.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:35 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:OK---you don't care if an issue is valid or invalid. Check.
:evil:

Not.
The.
Point.

People can protest whatever they want. It's the right we all have. So, if I want to protest the fact that some orange-skinned dumb ass just got elected as president, I can do that. My point is that that being pissed off at that fact IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO SET CARS ON FIRE, DESTROY BUILDINGS OR OTHERWISE CAUSE HARM.
Anyone who does so is a criminal. I have no sympathy for them.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Thought experiment: if the US had no third-term prohibition, and Obama had run instead of Clinton, would he have beaten Trump?
Yes, I think so. No controversy over e-mails, he is still very popular, he would have maintained support among the people who voted independent to make a point, plus maintained the minority vote.
One thing that struck me was CNN showing areas that Obama blew away in 2012. Even in areas that Clinton won, she won at a 50-60% range, Obama won in the 70-80% range.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:21 pm

Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
When conservatives hold a rally, they are terrorists. Liberals can burn buildings, but they are freedom fighters. So sayeth the almighty media.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 11300
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:23 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
Monster wrote:I have to vent about something.

A lot of my liberal fb friends are posting anecdotes of Trump supporters doing naughty stuff. That's perfectly fine. They can point to all the naughty things that Trump supporters are doing. However, it's the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are rioting right now. It is the liberals, Democrats, and leftists who are more violent, not the Trump supporters. The same was true during the presidential campaigns for the last year.
When conservatives hold a rally, they are terrorists. Liberals can burn buildings, but they are freedom fighters. So sayeth the almighty media.
Examples.
Also, Donald Trump is a clownfraud who only got involved in this for the attention.

Deadspin, 2014:
https://deadspin.com/there-are-just-two ... 1613879544

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Tallboy » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:39 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: I have a bit of a different take on this. Presidential elections in the US aren't, as we know, decided on popular vote. Before the election, Dems were sure that the electoral college, with the blue wall, gave them a built-in advantage and were generally just fine with that - and Trump was excoriating the electoral college (e.g., in '12 when rumors flew on election night that Romney had won the popular vote, Trump tweeted, “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” - all invented spelling Trump’s - and “More votes equals a loss….revolution!”) Both parties know the rules, and both built campaigns to win given the rules. Clinton managed to lose by shedding 6 million votes AND destroying the so-called blue wall in the process. These are really major accomplishments, not easily achieved. I've called her this before: she's like a cooler in Vegas.
reminds me of an old Knute Rockne story I heard (can't vouch for the authenticity):
Knute Rockne's Notre Dame football team beat Howard Jone's USC team and Jone's was quite upset afterwards. "they may have beaten us, but we outplayed them! we had more first downs!" Rockne replied, "if you want to play for first downs, let me know."