|
I informed my brother that he needs to get up early next Wednesday for victory breakfast like we did 4 years ago. He doesn't want to but I think I'll win ig I'm annoying enough.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
going back to the thread title, it seems like prester jane's prediction of an escalating trump meltdown has been completely untrue because while he's been up and down a lot lately it's not all that different from a few months ago and we came nowhere close to seeing the live televised Capitalized Narcissistic Rage because he was out of Supply or whatever other made-up terms
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Even if they hadn't been there'd be something else. I'm not convinced whatever else would be as effective with undecideds, because people are dumb as hell and don't get that literally the only thing about the E-mail server was that it was a small security risk (for over-classified documentation) you don't do sneaky stuff like they suspect over anything that keeps a permanent record! Both you and the receiver have a copy of it!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:going back to the thread title, it seems like prester jane's prediction of an escalating trump meltdown has been completely untrue because while he's been up and down a lot lately it's not all that different from a few months ago and we came nowhere close to seeing the live televised Capitalized Narcissistic Rage because he was out of Supply or whatever other made-up terms The meltdown comes election night when his SS detail and hangers on scatter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Yup, that's a good understanding of the situation. Throw North Carolina into the possible pickup pile, too, the Dem challenger is polling lower than the Republican incumbent, but only by about 1%, so GOTV could make the difference there. Yeah this. The NC senate race is within the moe and the incumbent republican has started to self immolate by saying he will no longer tell the largest news paper in NC where he will be campaigning along with explicitly telling people he will block any SCOTUS appointment hillary makes. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Nov 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:More or less, yes. He factors in catastrophic polling errors a lot more than the others. I suppose that's fair but how do you even begin to come up with a "likelihood the polls are wrong" number? Obviously the aggregates do miss--didn't Obama overperform in 2012 by a point or so? But shouldn't the possibilities cancel one another out--Hillary might just as easily secretly be doing slightly better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/793626439379718144 Reminder that Silicon Valley continues to let this Trump surrogate: a) Make gobs of money b) Serve in influential business positions
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:going back to the thread title, it seems like prester jane's prediction of an escalating trump meltdown has been completely untrue because while he's been up and down a lot lately it's not all that different from a few months ago and we came nowhere close to seeing the live televised Capitalized Narcissistic Rage because he was out of Supply or whatever other made-up terms I really don't understand this thread's obsession with PJ's magical, pseudo-psychological explanations of how the world works. She's wrong as often as she's right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Duscat posted:JFC. You get four years of internal and foreign policy by the candidate who wins. Supreme court rulings not that loving important if all arable land is radioactive waste. The president's ability to control policy is extremely limited without the support of Congress and the GOP will almost certainly work twice as hard at obstructing a Clinton administration as they have at obstructing Obama's administration. Clinton isn't going to be the second coming off Trollbama, as much as we'd like her to be, because she actually has to worry about reelection in 2020. Failing to win the Senate would legitimately be a very bad outcome, and that doesn't change just because Trump winning is almost unimaginably worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:And what happens to them in 2020 when you have a President Hillary whose only record involves countless investigations, and the GOP nominee is not setting themselves on fire every other morning? Demographics dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:I'd still say that having a Dem president is preferable to having GoP control of all three branches. Sure the SCOTUS can get shittier if we lose RBG and can't replace her, but you still got to mitigate your losses as best as possible. I think that's gonna bite them hardest for quite a while. They all saw how much Republicans hate hispanics this cycle, and any hispanics around during this time are gonna remember it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:hey guys if you are still being all arzy think about this *arzys harder*
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I suppose that's fair but how do you even begin to come up with a "likelihood the polls are wrong" number? Obviously the aggregates do miss--didn't Obama overperform in 2012 by a point or so? But shouldn't the possibilities cancel one another out--Hillary might just as easily secretly be doing slightly better. Nate admits this -- the probability of a Trump win is roughly the same as the probability of a Clinton blowout
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The president's ability to control policy is extremely limited without the support of Congress and the GOP will almost certainly work twice as hard at obstructing a Clinton administration as they have at obstructing Obama's administration. Have you ignored the last 4 years because pretty much everything of note has come specifically from the Executive Branch. Like you didn't need congressional approval for the FCC regulations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:What is your proposed solution? Let the country have another GOP reign that resembles Bush's second term and come crawling back when they realize how terrible things are. Trump is not losing because of his policies. He is losing because he can't even feign an ounce of humility, or listen to advisors. Eventually you have to recognize that you are fighting against what the majority of the country thinks they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Let the country have another GOP reign that resembles Bush's second term and come crawling back when they realize how terrible things are. Full stop, you're a loving idiot. Acceleration is never a good option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Goddammit we'd better win the Senate, I don't think my brain can handle 4 more years without a full court
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:going back to the thread title, it seems like prester jane's prediction of an escalating trump meltdown has been completely untrue because while he's been up and down a lot lately it's not all that different from a few months ago and we came nowhere close to seeing the live televised Capitalized Narcissistic Rage because he was out of Supply or whatever other made-up terms if anything he seems happier now that the race is pretty much over because he doesn't have to worry about actually trying anymore, he can just go around and give big speeches
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:Goddammit we'd better win the Senate, I don't think my brain can handle 4 more years without a full court Chances are we will. It's not as much of a sure thing as Clinton winning, but odds are dems will control the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Let the country have another GOP reign that resembles Bush's second term and come crawling back when they realize how terrible things are. So gently caress women and minorities basically Man you suck
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:Nate admits this -- the probability of a Trump win is roughly the same as the probability of a Clinton blowout Right but I guess it seems like the 538 model has some kind of "momentum" built into it--Trump is still clearly down, so if A. The polls don't move much in 6 days B. The polls are as accurate as they usually are, he will lose. If Trump winning at this point is just the "the polls are wrong" number, why should it have shifted significantly in the past week?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I suppose that's fair but how do you even begin to come up with a "likelihood the polls are wrong" number? Obviously the aggregates do miss--didn't Obama overperform in 2012 by a point or so? But shouldn't the possibilities cancel one another out--Hillary might just as easily secretly be doing slightly better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Eventually you have to recognize that you are fighting against what the majority of the country thinks they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Demographics dipshit. Demographics were supposed to make 2016 unwinnable for a Republican, and despite offending Hispanic voters as much as they probably could, this election is looking like it's going to be won because of college educated white voters that Trump alienated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Have you ignored the last 4 years because pretty much everything of note has come specifically from the Executive Branch. I... what? Are you just agreeing with me here? Everything of note has come from the executive because it's been effectively impossible for meaningful policy to pass through Congress. I never said that the President is literally incapable of doing anything without the support of Congress, but if you think that winning the White House without even gaining the ability to replace Scalia is a "win" then I don't really know what to say. Like, we're literally in a period of unprecedented long-term emergency monetary policy because Congress has been unwilling to pass any form of fiscal legislation for six years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I really don't understand this thread's obsession with PJ's magical, pseudo-psychological explanations of how the world works. She's wrong as often as she's right. That puts her a few steps above you
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Let the country have another GOP reign that resembles Bush's second term and come crawling back when they realize how terrible things are. You're talking about the party of white nationalism realizing that white nationalism doesn't work electorally even after 2012 proved that there weren't enough white nationalists to decide the presidential election. The GoP base isn't going to learn anything. They do not care whether the federal government works. They want federal stalemate so they can dominate policy in the dwindling pockets of state and local government that they have control over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Eventually you have to recognize that you are fighting against what the majority of the country thinks they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
So, just so that my brain doesn't feel like it's been tied in knots, I tried to write an overall timeline of events in the last 4 days:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Demographics were supposed to make 2016 unwinnable for a Republican, and despite offending Hispanic voters as much as they probably could, this election is looking like it's going to be won because of college educated white voters that Trump alienated. You actually think Trump will win? God drat you are a moron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Right but I guess it seems like the 538 model has some kind of "momentum" built into it--Trump is still clearly down, so if A. The polls don't move much in 6 days B. The polls are as accurate as they usually are, he will lose. If Trump winning at this point is just the "the polls are wrong" number, why should it have shifted significantly in the past week? Because Trump is still down in the polls, but he's down by less than he was a week ago. If you have a bunch of polls showing Clinton up 20 or something, the polls being off by a reasonable margin doesn't make much of a difference for her chances of winning. If polls show her only up by 3 or 4, then the chance that the polls are overestimating her is of more concern
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Full stop, you're a loving idiot. Accelerationism is just downmarket affluenza, white kids being so sheltered from the consequences of their actions that they believe economic crashes and layoffs are just abstract things that happen to other people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Right but I guess it seems like the 538 model has some kind of "momentum" built into it--Trump is still clearly down, so if A. The polls don't move much in 6 days B. The polls are as accurate as they usually are, he will lose. If Trump winning at this point is just the "the polls are wrong" number, why should it have shifted significantly in the past week? The point is error. Your expected margin of error is something like 3 points. If Trump is down by 7, you'd need a MASSIVE (and rare) polling error. If he's down by only 1 in your polls and the error is 3 points, you should not be surprised if he wins, because drawing a -1 with a measurement error of 3 is not rare if the true value is +1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:So, just so that my brain doesn't feel like it's been tied in knots, I tried to write an overall timeline of events in the last 4 days: Sounds accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Let the country have another GOP reign that resembles Bush's second term and come crawling back when they realize how terrible things are. So why didn't this happen last time? Dubya part 2 would be better than what Trump promises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
bhsman posted:So why didn't this happen last time? Dubya part 2 would be better than what Trump promises. Because he's pretending he isn't a Trump supporter and is spewing bullshit
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:That puts her a few steps above you All I've done is point out that all the actual evidence indicates that Trump's chances of winning the election today are far from 0%. I know that's very triggering for you and I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Demographics were supposed to make 2016 unwinnable for a Republican, and despite offending Hispanic voters as much as they probably could, this election is looking like it's going to be won because of college educated white voters that Trump alienated. They are making things harder for republicans, not unwinnable you dense as lead imbecile. Also, those college educated white voters are mostly women who still won't vote republicans after this election you monument to human stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Polls are a measure of voting inclination. Measurements are not error free. If you take 5 polls of a real voter inclination of Clinton +5, usually you'll get something like (+3, +1, +9, +2, +4), but sometimes you'll get something like (-2, 0, +4, -1, -5) and you'll think it's Trump who's winning when in truth Clinton is. Sure I get that, but again it comes back to the question of why 538's model seems so inclined towards 50/50 in a way that the others aren't--yes, the polls might be inaccurate, even over a large number of samples (leaving aside the issue of actual shifts in preference), but why does Nate's seem so much more skeptical of polling (maybe that's too harsh a way of putting it--maybe he just assumes that preferences are that fungible) than the others?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
I feel like a full term of GOP obstructionism and constantly investigating Hillary, it would backfire and make them look like assholes to everyone but the fringe. Most American want the goverment to work, and if its clear that straight up one party is doing everything to prevent that from happening, it won't gain them any sympathy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 03:00
|
|
