|
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. |
It can be predicted to some degree in aggregate, far from perfect accuracy, but you can get some decent results in that area. At any rate, I'm fine with ending the discussion.
|
On November 13 2016 02:37 nafta wrote:There were lots of people who predicted Trump. The people who didn't simply chose to stay in the bubble and laugh at them  .
A lot of them predicted Trump landslides/Trump popular vote/EC victories though (just look at how many people said the LAtimes tracking poll was showing the true state of the race, when it missed by more than the others). I don't think either of the bubbles really deserves to gloat-I mean, even the Trump campaign internally put their chances around 30%.
|
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely.
|
On November 13 2016 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely.
It sure did make PEC and HuffPo look like fools for criticizing Silver for giving Trump reasonable odds of victory though.
|
On November 13 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely. It sure did make PEC and HuffPo look like fools for criticizing Silver for giving Trump reasonable odds of victory though.
Sure, that's true. If anybody's interested Sam Wang of the PEC went over the prediction and the result in their latest podcast.
https://soundcloud.com/woodrowwilsonschool/politics-polls-20-what-just-happened
|
On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what?
Here's the thing though, he's right. A majority of the people who come here are in favor of expanded government with more programs, and that means a majority of the immigrant vote always goes to the Democrats. It's an easy way of tipping the electorate in your favor.
|
On November 13 2016 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:On November 13 2016 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 01:23 travis wrote:On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". It can just as well be about culture. Making it about race is your own interpretation nothing more. I went to a high school in rural PA with 1/4 Hispanics. And I never felt the need to react to them or care. These days, the town is nice and white, people go to McDonald's and have iPhones, and it's all good. So I personally don't take seriously the "culture" excuse.
I don't really care just like you. I'm also pro immigration. That doesn't mean it isn't a real thing and very important to some people as LegalLord mentioned. It looks to me like you've already decided that the statement is racist and that any other possible explanation is simply an excuse. We'll have to agree to disagree here.
|
On November 13 2016 02:59 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what? Here's the thing though, he's right. A majority of the people who come here are in favor of expanded government with more programs, and that means a majority of the immigrant vote always goes to the Democrats. It's an easy way of tipping the electorate in your favor.
a democrat president has won 2 elections. that said, how many governors are democrats? over the last 10 years how many years have the democrats controlled congress? do the results reflect we're having imba elections with the democrats being OP?
|
On November 13 2016 03:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:59 forsooth wrote:On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what? Here's the thing though, he's right. A majority of the people who come here are in favor of expanded government with more programs, and that means a majority of the immigrant vote always goes to the Democrats. It's an easy way of tipping the electorate in your favor. a democrat president has won 2 elections. that said, how many governors are democrats? over the last 10 years how many years have the democrats controlled congress? do the results reflect we're having imba elections with the democrats being OP?
We still live in a country where nearly 70% of the electorate is white. That will change significantly in the coming years, and you will see the rest of the country become like California, a state quickly approaching Hispanic majority that is irreversibly blue. Make no mistake, the process is working. It just needs more time.
|
On November 13 2016 03:21 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 03:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:59 forsooth wrote:On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what? Here's the thing though, he's right. A majority of the people who come here are in favor of expanded government with more programs, and that means a majority of the immigrant vote always goes to the Democrats. It's an easy way of tipping the electorate in your favor. a democrat president has won 2 elections. that said, how many governors are democrats? over the last 10 years how many years have the democrats controlled congress? do the results reflect we're having imba elections with the democrats being OP? We still live in a country where nearly 70% of the electorate is white. That will change significantly in the coming years, and you will see the rest of the country become like California, a state quickly approaching Hispanic majority that is irreversibly blue. Make no mistake, the process is working. It just needs more time.
Trump received higher minority shares than Romney. I wouldn't necessarily count on demographic changes being the salvation for liberal politics. The system is more dynamic than that.
|
On November 13 2016 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 03:21 forsooth wrote:On November 13 2016 03:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 13 2016 02:59 forsooth wrote:On November 12 2016 22:40 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 12 2016 22:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. Well the demographics were far better for the dems than they were in 2008 yet they got 9,000,000 less votes.This should be a huge concern.Plus republicans do better with hispanics each generation. I think we're going to run into huge problems before that though due to automation.3,000,000 truck drivers in the US now, what happens when that work is automated? We're maybe 5-7 years away. Your argument, while maybe true, is pathetic. "The left can't win on the ideas field, so we are are just gonna import people and make them breed, we just have to wait a bit". (To Nyxisto) The way you talk about strangers as if they're cattle is disgusting. “Import and make them breed,” seriously? You think you're talking about animals in a zoo or what? Here's the thing though, he's right. A majority of the people who come here are in favor of expanded government with more programs, and that means a majority of the immigrant vote always goes to the Democrats. It's an easy way of tipping the electorate in your favor. a democrat president has won 2 elections. that said, how many governors are democrats? over the last 10 years how many years have the democrats controlled congress? do the results reflect we're having imba elections with the democrats being OP? We still live in a country where nearly 70% of the electorate is white. That will change significantly in the coming years, and you will see the rest of the country become like California, a state quickly approaching Hispanic majority that is irreversibly blue. Make no mistake, the process is working. It just needs more time. Trump received higher minority shares than Romney. I wouldn't necessarily count on demographic changes being the salvation for liberal politics. The system is more dynamic than that.
That increased percentage still failed to crack 30% in the case of the Hispanic vote, which is by far the most important minority bloc in the country.
|
On November 13 2016 03:08 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:On November 13 2016 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 01:23 travis wrote:On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". It can just as well be about culture. Making it about race is your own interpretation nothing more. I went to a high school in rural PA with 1/4 Hispanics. And I never felt the need to react to them or care. These days, the town is nice and white, people go to McDonald's and have iPhones, and it's all good. So I personally don't take seriously the "culture" excuse. I don't really care just like you. I'm also pro immigration. That doesn't mean it isn't a real thing and very important to some people as LegalLord mentioned. It looks to me like you've already decided that the statement is racist and that any other possible explanation is simply an excuse. We'll have to agree to disagree here.
The ones who, unlike us, do care, are intolerant and therefore racist.
And yes, there's more to it than "all new immigrants are Democrats". Show them that Republican policies work, unlike trickle down and ME invasions, and you could earn some votes.
|
On November 13 2016 03:43 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 03:08 RvB wrote:On November 13 2016 02:31 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 02:10 RvB wrote:On November 13 2016 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:On November 13 2016 01:23 travis wrote:On November 13 2016 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Also have we talked about how "We don't have a country anymore" is an inherently racist statement? It's saying look at all these Mexicans. "Take our country back" means take it back from the brown skinned people who have been in the White House and going on welfare and crossing the border and suicide bombing and killing each other in gang warfare and having babies with no father around. That's the rallying cry of the core Trump electorate - "We don't have a country anymore" and "Take our country back". What are you basing this interpretation on? I would take it to mean "we aren't being represented, no one is looking out for our interests". "We don't have a country anymore" is very different from "we aren't being represented". It can just as well be about culture. Making it about race is your own interpretation nothing more. I went to a high school in rural PA with 1/4 Hispanics. And I never felt the need to react to them or care. These days, the town is nice and white, people go to McDonald's and have iPhones, and it's all good. So I personally don't take seriously the "culture" excuse. I don't really care just like you. I'm also pro immigration. That doesn't mean it isn't a real thing and very important to some people as LegalLord mentioned. It looks to me like you've already decided that the statement is racist and that any other possible explanation is simply an excuse. We'll have to agree to disagree here. The ones who, unlike us, do care, are intolerant and therefore racist. And yes, there's more to it than "all new immigrants are Democrats". Show them that Republican policies work, unlike trickle down and ME invasions, and you could earn some votes.
Do you understand how absurd it is to claim that being against the undermining of your culture is racist? It's people like you that are the reason real dialogue is dead.
"Accept everything even if it goes against what you value or you're racist."
Fucking really?
|
On November 13 2016 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely.
Well, I mean...99% chance still means the 1% thing does indeed happen. It is just not likely to happen. Summed across all time, we expect things with a 1% chance of happening to end up happening millions of times. This could really just be that one in a hundred scenario.
|
On November 13 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely. Well, I mean...99% chance still means the 1% thing does indeed happen. It is just not likely to happen. Summed across all time, we expect things with a 1% chance of happening to end up happening millions of times. This could really just be that one in a hundred scenario.
I'm not going to explain the entire thing again - read my long post if you like - but this isn't really a proper way to attribute it. Something like Bernie Sanders winning Michigan might be that one-in-a-hundred freak aberration of your data being so off course, because nothing in the raw data could really have predicted that upset. Here, it's more so that their model that gave Trump a 1 percent chance was too confident in its assertions. The data just wasn't so confident about a Clinton win as the model was.
Like, could you tell me that you were 99% sure that Clinton would win? I polled this, and most people were only 60-80% sure she would win. The 99% looked stupid and it was stupid. Furthermore, the underlying distribution of how states voted does not corroborate with any degree of accuracy in the 99 percent model. It's like if Johnson won and they said "well maybe he's just that 0.0001 percent chance our model predicted and it happened to happen." No, it just means your model sucked.
|
On November 13 2016 03:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Even Trump's own campaign didn't put his chances over 30%. Yes, predictions putting Hillary at 99% were too confident at hindsight but a Trump win doesn't just automatically justify Trump predictions. It was still unlikely. Well, I mean...99% chance still means the 1% thing does indeed happen. It is just not likely to happen. Summed across all time, we expect things with a 1% chance of happening to end up happening millions of times. This could really just be that one in a hundred scenario.
A few days before the election HuffPo's aggregator had Clinton leading by 6 points when not a single poll in the previous couple weeks had her lead by more than 5, the average was about 2-3. It wasn't just chance, they did not accurately reflect polling unlike 538 or RCP.
|
Furthermore, it was fair to call that HuffPo and PEC didn't really sound like they knew what they were doing. Multiple people said so, including myself.
|
On November 13 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 02:22 Buckyman wrote:On November 13 2016 01:58 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if we should add political affilitation to the list of things covered by the hate crimes statutes. opinions on that? I don't see why our hate crime statues are based on lists of 'protected' attributes in the first place. how would you alternately have them run?
As an additional punishment for using certain crimes to deter people from exercising certain rights (e.g. petition, association, worship, voting) irrespective of how the rights were being exercised.
|
|
|
For all the things I could fault the Republicans for, I have to say that I've always thought they had more coherent leadership. Their message was just so contradictory that it wasn't enough to beat Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
