|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 05 2016 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 00:43 LegalLord wrote:On October 05 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone else agree that Trump is best off dropping Ohio, assuming he can squeeze out a victory there, and going ape shit on Florida? Drop a state he's winning in for a state he's basically tied in? So long as he wins by a single vote, it doesn't matter. My point is that Clinton has really struggled in Ohio and the demographics do not favor her. I would argue that Ohio has pretty much crystallized at this point. Florida seems a lot more up in the air. I think it would be "risky" to ditch Ohio, but I would think it is more risky to lose Florida. Getting 269 is the same as getting 0. He needs 270 and he needs both Ohio and Florida for that.
Trump will not take Ohio.
|
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that?
|
On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that?
Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited.
(Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.)
|
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter.
|
Isn't the argument about Ohio something about the voters outside of the urban centers? Well, except for maybe cinci suburbs
|
On October 05 2016 01:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that? Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited. (Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.)
I am not saying this is the case, but: It sounds kind of like Trump supporters talking about rallies being huge mean he will win. Your explanation is qualitative and I'm not seeing what invalidates these polls. Are you saying that they have other polling methods that are more effective? And these numbers from ground floor political contacts are different? And favoring Clinton?
On October 05 2016 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter.
I think Kasich wants Trump to lose, but he also needs to stay in the RNC's good graces. We saw Cruz get on his knees already for the same reasons. I think Kasich is doing his best to keep as many people happy with him as possible. At this point, he doesn't have much reason to say anything.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 05 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:13 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that? Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited. (Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.) I am not saying this is the case, but: It sounds kind of like Trump supporters talking about rallies being huge mean he will win. Your explanation is qualitative and I'm not seeing what invalidates these polls. Are you saying that they have other polling methods that are more effective? And these numbers from ground floor political contacts are different? And favoring Clinton? Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter. I think Kasich wants Trump to lose, but he also needs to stay in the RNC's good graces. We saw Cruz get on his knees already for the same reasons. I think Kasich is doing his best to keep as many people happy with him as possible. At this point, he doesn't have much reason to say anything.
Igne's posts on the topic of facticity are helpful here, but the long and short of it is that facts are not as influential as they once were when it comes to making broad, systems-based predictions, and accordingly, the previously intact illusion supporting the veracity of polling generally is peeling away more and more each election cycle. There are some basic assumptions underlying every polling method (namely the assumption of a rational response) that are increasingly called into question by the disparity between expectation and outcome, and even statistics whores like Nate Silver recognize this when they disclaim the accuracy of pretty much everything they say based on polling data.
This infirmity underlying the increasing uselessness of polling data is the same one that relegates factual attacks against Trump utterly useless; his supporters literally do not care about the Truth because Truth is merely a manipulative tool utilized by an establishment that does not care about them. Democrats need to get hip to this soon or they'll face a Trump of their own (and no, Sanders is not that).
Long story short, Clinton will take Ohio, and no, I can't prove it 
|
United States42682 Posts
On October 05 2016 01:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2016 01:13 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that? Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited. (Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.) I am not saying this is the case, but: It sounds kind of like Trump supporters talking about rallies being huge mean he will win. Your explanation is qualitative and I'm not seeing what invalidates these polls. Are you saying that they have other polling methods that are more effective? And these numbers from ground floor political contacts are different? And favoring Clinton? On October 05 2016 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter. I think Kasich wants Trump to lose, but he also needs to stay in the RNC's good graces. We saw Cruz get on his knees already for the same reasons. I think Kasich is doing his best to keep as many people happy with him as possible. At this point, he doesn't have much reason to say anything. Igne's posts on the topic of facticity are helpful here, but the long and short of it is that facts are not as influential as they once were when it comes to making broad, systems-based predictions, and accordingly, the previously intact illusion supporting the veracity of polling generally is peeling away more and more each election cycle. There are some basic assumptions underlying every polling method (namely the assumption of a rational response) that are increasingly called into question by the disparity between expectation and outcome, and even statistics whores like Nate Silver recognize this when they disclaim the accuracy of pretty much everything they say based on polling data. This infirmity underlying the increasing uselessness of polling data is the same one that relegates factual attacks against Trump utterly useless; his supporters literally do not care about the Truth because Truth is merely a manipulative tool utilized by an establishment that does not care about them. Democrats need to get hip to this soon or they'll face a Trump of their own (and no, Sanders is not that). Long story short, Clinton will take Ohio, and no, I can't prove it
Election over boys. If Trump loses Ohio and doesn't take Pennsylvania or a couple of other non competitive smaller states like New Hampshire then this is a done deal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Igne's point, or at least my version of it, was rather simple: any non-trivial "facts" about the real world (as opposed to an abstract field like mathematics and to some extent the hard sciences) are strongly based on the assumptions you make, and if your assumptions are bad then so is your conclusion. Furthermore, if you have shitty assumptions then no amount of expertise can help you because you won't be able to filter the useful expertise from the wrong expertise in any useful way.
In the context of polling, the idea of a "representative sample of likely voters" is a tricky topic to properly address. I once again link this study on polling methodologies and their problems.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 05 2016 01:39 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:28 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2016 01:13 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that? Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited. (Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.) I am not saying this is the case, but: It sounds kind of like Trump supporters talking about rallies being huge mean he will win. Your explanation is qualitative and I'm not seeing what invalidates these polls. Are you saying that they have other polling methods that are more effective? And these numbers from ground floor political contacts are different? And favoring Clinton? On October 05 2016 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter. I think Kasich wants Trump to lose, but he also needs to stay in the RNC's good graces. We saw Cruz get on his knees already for the same reasons. I think Kasich is doing his best to keep as many people happy with him as possible. At this point, he doesn't have much reason to say anything. Igne's posts on the topic of facticity are helpful here, but the long and short of it is that facts are not as influential as they once were when it comes to making broad, systems-based predictions, and accordingly, the previously intact illusion supporting the veracity of polling generally is peeling away more and more each election cycle. There are some basic assumptions underlying every polling method (namely the assumption of a rational response) that are increasingly called into question by the disparity between expectation and outcome, and even statistics whores like Nate Silver recognize this when they disclaim the accuracy of pretty much everything they say based on polling data. This infirmity underlying the increasing uselessness of polling data is the same one that relegates factual attacks against Trump utterly useless; his supporters literally do not care about the Truth because Truth is merely a manipulative tool utilized by an establishment that does not care about them. Democrats need to get hip to this soon or they'll face a Trump of their own (and no, Sanders is not that). Long story short, Clinton will take Ohio, and no, I can't prove it Wait, but why do people think polling data is useless? Wasn't 538 incredibly accurate when it came to predicting the outcomes of previous elections?
Even Nate Silver admitted that luck had a nontrivial component in his success.
|
United States42682 Posts
On October 05 2016 01:38 LegalLord wrote:Igne's point, or at least my version of it, was rather simple: any non-trivial "facts" about the real world (as opposed to an abstract field like mathematics and to some extent the hard sciences) are strongly based on the assumptions you make, and if your assumptions are bad then so is your conclusion. Furthermore, if you have shitty assumptions then no amount of expertise can help you because you won't be able to filter the useful expertise from the wrong expertise in any useful way. In the context of polling, the idea of a "representative sample of likely voters" is a tricky topic to properly address. I once again link this study on polling methodologies and their problems.
I saw a bunch of Trumpers explaining that they, a group of dedicated patriots, gun owners, veterans and law enforcement officers, had conducted the one real poll that would disprove all the fake polls in the mainstream media. Each of them called 1000 people in each of the 50 states and it turned out Trump had overwhelming popular support. They therefore disregarded the polls printed in the media.
Of course the entire thing was a deranged fiction anyway but even if it wasn't you still think "wait, so you weighted all states equally regardless of population?". I confess to reading /r/The_Donald at work. 
|
The other day Nate silver pointed out that the polls in 2012 were basically static because it was an incredibly boring race, really. Very little actual news occurred to change the polls. This year it is not like that at all. I think there's a pretty decent chance the polls miss by a larger than normal amount.
|
"It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter," Smith said. It read: "Great meeting with you and your wife in my office," dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump's benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.
From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation's tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.
Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.
"He was politically active starting in 2011," said one source with ties to Trump, and at that point he "started to make strategic donations."
The lion's share of those donations came from Trump's personal funds and went straight to political campaigns or parties. But others, in particular those directed to the nonprofit arms of conservative policy groups, originated with Trump's foundation.
"If he could do 501(c)(3) to 501(c)(3), he did it that way," said the source, using the tax code designation for nonprofit organizations.
But Trump has not donated to the foundation that bears his name since 2008, CNN reported last month, which means other donors bore the cost of his giving.
The donations to groups that granted Trump plum speaking slots or otherwise promoted his political aspirations also might run afoul of self-dealing rules for private foundations, which prohibit a foundation's leadership from using donor money for its own gain.
Real Clear Politics
|
On October 05 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:38 LegalLord wrote:Igne's point, or at least my version of it, was rather simple: any non-trivial "facts" about the real world (as opposed to an abstract field like mathematics and to some extent the hard sciences) are strongly based on the assumptions you make, and if your assumptions are bad then so is your conclusion. Furthermore, if you have shitty assumptions then no amount of expertise can help you because you won't be able to filter the useful expertise from the wrong expertise in any useful way. In the context of polling, the idea of a "representative sample of likely voters" is a tricky topic to properly address. I once again link this study on polling methodologies and their problems. I saw a bunch of Trumpers explaining that they, a group of dedicated patriots, gun owners, veterans and law enforcement officers, had conducted the one real poll that would disprove all the fake polls in the mainstream media. Each of them called 1000 people in each of the 50 states and it turned out Trump had overwhelming popular support. They therefore disregarded the polls printed in the media. Of course the entire thing was a deranged fiction anyway but even if it wasn't you still think "wait, so you weighted all states equally regardless of population?". I confess to reading /r/The_Donald at work.
Even better, once they've concluded polls are rigged/dumb because one guy told them that in NJ he saw more Trump yard signs
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4xtux6/trump_will_win_nj/
|
Spain17989 Posts
On October 05 2016 01:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +"It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter," Smith said. It read: "Great meeting with you and your wife in my office," dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump's benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.
From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation's tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.
Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.
"He was politically active starting in 2011," said one source with ties to Trump, and at that point he "started to make strategic donations."
The lion's share of those donations came from Trump's personal funds and went straight to political campaigns or parties. But others, in particular those directed to the nonprofit arms of conservative policy groups, originated with Trump's foundation.
"If he could do 501(c)(3) to 501(c)(3), he did it that way," said the source, using the tax code designation for nonprofit organizations.
But Trump has not donated to the foundation that bears his name since 2008, CNN reported last month, which means other donors bore the cost of his giving.
The donations to groups that granted Trump plum speaking slots or otherwise promoted his political aspirations also might run afoul of self-dealing rules for private foundations, which prohibit a foundation's leadership from using donor money for its own gain. Real Clear Politics
Technically, if he was giving to non-profit conservative organizations, it was simply one charity paying another charity. It'd be incredibly hard to prove that the motivation here was not a charitable one, but Trump buying "favour" from someone in the receiving charity.
I'd rank this significantly below the other money schemes (tax law exploitation and also the other self-dealing accusations for the foundation). It's hard to explain, and pretty obscure. Distasteful, to say the least, but doubt this "has legs" as your pundits like to call it.
|
United States42682 Posts
On October 05 2016 01:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:46 Doodsmack wrote:"It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter," Smith said. It read: "Great meeting with you and your wife in my office," dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump's benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.
From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation's tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.
Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.
"He was politically active starting in 2011," said one source with ties to Trump, and at that point he "started to make strategic donations."
The lion's share of those donations came from Trump's personal funds and went straight to political campaigns or parties. But others, in particular those directed to the nonprofit arms of conservative policy groups, originated with Trump's foundation.
"If he could do 501(c)(3) to 501(c)(3), he did it that way," said the source, using the tax code designation for nonprofit organizations.
But Trump has not donated to the foundation that bears his name since 2008, CNN reported last month, which means other donors bore the cost of his giving.
The donations to groups that granted Trump plum speaking slots or otherwise promoted his political aspirations also might run afoul of self-dealing rules for private foundations, which prohibit a foundation's leadership from using donor money for its own gain. Real Clear Politics Technically, if he was giving to non-profit conservative organizations, it was simply one charity paying another charity. It'd be incredibly hard to prove that the motivation here was not a charitable one, but Trump buying "favour" from someone in the receiving charity. I'd rank this significantly below the other money schemes (tax law exploitation and also the other self-dealing accusations for the foundation). It's hard to explain, and pretty obscure. Distasteful, to say the least, but doubt this "has legs" as your pundits like to call it.
It comes down to if there was any personal gain for Donald Trump from him using his charitable foundation to make donations to specific influential conservative non-profits..
|
On October 05 2016 01:39 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 01:28 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2016 01:13 farvacola wrote:On October 05 2016 01:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
trump has an okay grip on OH, but he needs to stop the bleeding in NC and FL or it won't matter. there are very worrying trends in both those states for him.
farva, why do you say that? Because the polls that say that Trump has a good shot in Ohio are just as wrong as the ones that said Romney also had a good shot in 2012. November 8 will again show everyone why our methods of tracking the presidential election pre-vote desperately need to be revisited. (Grain of salt proviso: I'm also from Ohio and have ground floor political contacts on both sides of the spectrum in Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, and Toledo; they are all telling me that the polls suggesting a Trump victory do not gel with what they are experiencing.) I am not saying this is the case, but: It sounds kind of like Trump supporters talking about rallies being huge mean he will win. Your explanation is qualitative and I'm not seeing what invalidates these polls. Are you saying that they have other polling methods that are more effective? And these numbers from ground floor political contacts are different? And favoring Clinton? On October 05 2016 01:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
There's also a big X factor in Ohio regarding Kasich. He hasn't said much trashing Trump for a while but I'm not sure if that's because he isn't going to or because he's saving it till when he thinks it will matter. I think Kasich wants Trump to lose, but he also needs to stay in the RNC's good graces. We saw Cruz get on his knees already for the same reasons. I think Kasich is doing his best to keep as many people happy with him as possible. At this point, he doesn't have much reason to say anything. Igne's posts on the topic of facticity are helpful here, but the long and short of it is that facts are not as influential as they once were when it comes to making broad, systems-based predictions, and accordingly, the previously intact illusion supporting the veracity of polling generally is peeling away more and more each election cycle. There are some basic assumptions underlying every polling method (namely the assumption of a rational response) that are increasingly called into question by the disparity between expectation and outcome, and even statistics whores like Nate Silver recognize this when they disclaim the accuracy of pretty much everything they say based on polling data. This infirmity underlying the increasing uselessness of polling data is the same one that relegates factual attacks against Trump utterly useless; his supporters literally do not care about the Truth because Truth is merely a manipulative tool utilized by an establishment that does not care about them. Democrats need to get hip to this soon or they'll face a Trump of their own (and no, Sanders is not that). Long story short, Clinton will take Ohio, and no, I can't prove it Wait, but why do people think polling data is useless? Wasn't 538 incredibly accurate when it came to predicting the outcomes of previous elections?
I should add that "useless" is the wrong term; I should have said "significantly decreased utility at the margins"
In other news, fuck this guy and his companies.
A federal judge in Nevada said professional racecar driver Scott Tucker and several of his companies owe $1.27 billion to the Federal Trade Commission after systematically deceiving payday lending customers about the cost of their loans.
In one example, lending documents indicated that a customer who borrowed $500 would only have a finance charge of $150, for a total payment of $650 — but the actual finance charge was $1,425.
In a decision late on Friday, Chief Judge Gloria Navarro of the federal court in Las Vegas, Nevada said Tucker was "specifically aware" that customers often did not understand the terms of their loans, and was at least "recklessly indifferent" toward how those loans were marketed.
"Scott Tucker did not participate in an isolated, discrete incident of deceptive lending, but engaged in sustained and continuous conduct that perpetuated the deceptive lending since at least 2008," Navarro wrote.
The judge also barred Tucker from engaging in consumer lending.
Lawyers for Tucker did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment. Tucker had argued that there was no fraud or intent to deceive, and that his loans met industry standards.
The FTC on Monday asked Navarro to direct the turnover of some previously frozen assets to help satisfy the judgment.
Tucker, who races in the United States and Europe, faces separate criminal charges in Manhattan, where prosecutors accused him of running a $2 billion payday lending scheme that exploited 4.5 million consumers.
Payday Loan Group Slapped With Record $1.3B Fine for 700 Percent Lending Rates
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
