|
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 November 05 2016 07:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 05:30 xDaunt wrote:
The mere fact that there's a poll out there showing Trump tied with Hillary in Michigan should give democrats pause. Trump will win Michigan. Black turnout down in every state. Trump picking up huge numbers of white middle class registered democrats. Trump denouncing free trade agreements that have destroyed cities like Detroit and Flint through offshoring. Michigan is the perfect state for him, I'm surprised he's not 50 points up there.
How does your surprise impact your certitudes?
|
On November 04 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
PEC just uses a questionable method. Trump's chances are definitely better than 3%. He really could win under not so unfeasible circumstances. Read their FAQ and you'll see "well our method has failed before, it failed to predict this and that election... but we fixed it and it's all good now guys!" I call BS.
Coming back to the number crunching I actually saw this today which compared PEC, Silver and others up to 2012, and PEC in the past definitely has been at least as accurate as Nate, so I think calling their model BS seems unfair.
|
Trump's realistic path to victory is Nevada into New Hampshire. I'm not sure why he focused on Pennsylvania and Michigan, was New Hampshire way out of reach when he made that choice?
|
On November 05 2016 07:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 05:30 xDaunt wrote:
The mere fact that there's a poll out there showing Trump tied with Hillary in Michigan should give democrats pause. Trump will win Michigan. Black turnout down in every state. Trump picking up huge numbers of white middle class registered democrats. Trump denouncing free trade agreements that have destroyed cities like Detroit and Flint through offshoring. Michigan is the perfect state for him, I'm surprised he's not 50 points up there.
Meanwhile you have people who have voted republican all their lives say Trump is too deplorable to vote for so they are staying home or voting Clinton. Trump isn't winning Mi.
|
United States43964 Posts
On November 05 2016 07:57 Nebuchad wrote:
Trump's realistic path to victory is Nevada into New Hampshire. I'm not sure why he focused on Pennsylvania and Michigan, was New Hampshire way out of reach when he made that choice?
NH needed Maine (if no NV) and would still need him to go 6/6. For most of the election 6/6 seemed really unrealistic, although so did any kind of Trump victory. Swinging PA would allow him to lose one of the smaller swings, and he couldn't afford to campaign in all of them. It was an allin.
|
Part of the whole point of elective government is to filter out the stupid.
|
On November 05 2016 08:09 zlefin wrote:
Part of the whole point of elective government is to filter out the stupid.
That has never been the point of Democracy. It is just one of the hopes.
|
On November 05 2016 08:09 zlefin wrote:
Part of the whole point of elective government is to filter out the stupid.
You mean restrictions from high office? Universal suffrage is one of the most empowering forms for however you wish to define it; low-IQ, uneducated, whatever. Their vote counts as much as any other, which is not true for other systems of government.
|
I don't understand these random posts calling Trump orange or what not. Kind of hypocritical.
Part of the problem is that if Trump wins, you have this whole section of the population that will feel justified in their anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-mexican, anti-muslim, anti-gay, sexist, generally racist povs. Why couldn't you choose another year to fight corruption? This was brought up on the NPR podcast recently I think, this Conservative woman was worried that America was becoming a less hospitable place for people with her views. And it's like, no shit, let gays get married and stop religiously shitting on women and blacks.
Anyways the point is the side that wins is going to feel justified in continuing this shit slinging, for the right that means 4 more years of this racist crap, and it goes both ways with the left insulting Trump for his orangeness or little hands. "When they go low, we go high" yo. Why do all this rude ass name calling shit when there's so many more real issues involved? You only undermine your own integrity.
|
Because people are frustrated and have given up. There was this black guy recently who supports Trump, he was thrown out of a Trump rally and called a thug and guess what, he still loves Trump. His love for Donald has officially superceded his survival instinct. This is scientology level, there is no hope for these people
|
On November 05 2016 08:23 Blisse wrote:
I don't understand these random posts calling Trump orange or what not. Kind of hypocritical.
Part of the problem is that if Trump wins, you have this whole section of the population that will feel justified in their anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-mexican, anti-muslim, anti-gay, sexist, generally racist povs. Why couldn't you choose another year to fight corruption? This was brought up on the NPR podcast recently I think, this Conservative woman was worried that America was becoming a less hospitable place for people with her views. And it's like, no shit, let gays get married and stop religiously shitting on women and blacks.
Anyways the point is the side that wins is going to feel justified in continuing this shit slinging, for the right that means 4 more years of this racist crap, and it goes both ways with the left insulting Trump for his orangeness or little hands. "When they go low, we go high" yo. Why do all this rude ass name calling shit when there's so many more real issues involved? You only undermine your own integrity.
Sam Sanders of NPR said that calling people racist causes them to shut down. But he has also discussed how difficult it is get a white person to accept that his point of view as a black man is different from theirs and equally valid. That when he tries to explain that he sees something different because he grew up as a black man in Texas the standard response is that it is his fault for having that view.
As a white dude, I used to have that point of view too. That black people shouldn't try to "see everything through race". But I realized how shitty that was, because I was demanding they adopt my view on the subject and invalidating their experience. And that took years.
|
On November 05 2016 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
Because people are frustrated and have given up. There was this black guy recently who supports Trump, he was thrown out of a Trump rally and called a thug and guess what, he still loves Trump. His love for Donald has officially superceded his survival instinct. This is scientology level, there is no hope for these people
Its possible for supporters of something you love to be people you dislike without hating the thing you love.
For example, balance whiners in SC2 bug the shit out of me--but that doesn't mean I hate SC2.
|
Y'all's explanations for the prevalence of the Trump supporter are hilariously off the mark. Cut the bullshit condescension and try again.
User was warned for this post
|
I'm afraid 'condescension' is about all I can muster for anybody who thinks Trump, or electing Trump, is actually going to fix any of their problems.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
On November 05 2016 07:55 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 23:06 LegalLord wrote:
PEC just uses a questionable method. Trump's chances are definitely better than 3%. He really could win under not so unfeasible circumstances. Read their FAQ and you'll see "well our method has failed before, it failed to predict this and that election... but we fixed it and it's all good now guys!" I call BS.
Coming back to the number crunching I actually saw this today which compared PEC, Silver and others up to 2012, and PEC in the past definitely has been at least as accurate as Nate, so I think calling their model BS seems unfair.
I'm prepared to reconsider if they do well more than once, but reading what you had there it seems mostly like the analysis you linked favors those who were most confident about their predictions - which would easily favor PEC. I suppose a better test will be whether Nate or PEC seem more accurate in predicting whether or not the current shift in polls towards Trump is real; the PEC says that they will have to eat their words if Trump gets over 240.
However, what I'm really calling BS on is the way they try to explain themselves. Their track record and their confidence in current results are not very in line with each other. They also just don't really sound like they know what they're doing.
|
On November 05 2016 08:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 08:09 zlefin wrote:
Part of the whole point of elective government is to filter out the stupid. You mean restrictions from high office? Universal suffrage is one of the most empowering forms for however you wish to define it; low-IQ, uneducated, whatever. Their vote counts as much as any other, which is not true for other systems of government.
i'm not talking about suffrage; but the point of electing people rather than just picking them at random, is to filter out some of the crazy stupid. though really that should be the point of all forms of government, to filter out the stupid and get competent people, at least at a minimum.
|
On November 05 2016 09:18 xDaunt wrote:
Y'all's explanations for the prevalence of the Trump supporter are hilariously off the mark. Cut the bullshit condescension and try again.
But we learned talking down to people from you. We learned from watching you.
User was warned for this post
|
Lol glad to see a Bernie Bro is making that shit relevant again. What kind of fucking elector disregards the will of the people and refuses to cast his electoral vote for the person who wins the state
|
On November 05 2016 09:43 plasmidghost wrote:
Should Trump be trying harder in Florida? He's only having two more rallies there and if polls can be trusted, is gradually slipping throughout the state
He's there Saturday & Monday.Sunday he's got four events in four different states.The guys energy always surprises me especially considering his age.Really does fit as much in as he can.
BTW the one day he's not in Florida, on Sunday, Pence is doing an event there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
