|
BiggerBoat posted:I was debating Name Change about Trump being able to win in 2024 and found this: The data itself is half a year old, from before any of these indictments hit, and found a difference so small margin-of-error calculations are a major concern. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be on the lookout, but this tea is so weak it’s nearly homeopathic.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Discussing Trump's chances of victory is functionally pointless because it's a low probability event that we all remember happening once before and being highly traumatic, so our lizard brains all react to the mention of it the way your digestive system will to the smell of sweet and sour sauce if Chinese food gave you food poisoning once ten years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yeah this seems big. I really wish I could have been a floating, ephemeral ghost during the latestage of the Trump admin and tell them all "Being a good president is also a path to re-election. Votes actually flow in! All of this energy being spent on mechanical systems is time you could have spent inspiring the country. I know you hate Barack Obama but maybe there's a parable here about a problem he didn't have. Picture a violent incel, if you will. What if he put more time into improving himself rather than blaming women's perception of him".
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I would accept being sequestered inside a rotting whale colon if it meant I could break the back of American conservatism for the near future. Sir I would like to inform you that I've read this post over and over- with increasing laughter- and you've stolen time on my Sunday I need back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Wait, actually reading the study now it's different. That Yahoo!News article doesn't summarize it well at all. The data isn't as old as I first thought, it's only like 2 weeks old. But this is one okay-ish poll showing Trump 2 points ahead with a 2.6% margin of error. So now I'm still not exactly terrified here, but I'm at least accurate about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Trump is a serious threat to democracy and the US and trying to wave away his chances as "but now he's indicted" feels a lot like "but he came out and said 'grab them by the pussy'! There's no way they'd elect a known sexual harasser!" Nothing in this world is too stupid to not happen. Being vigilant of his chances to actually win costs you nothing. Until he's actually in jail and the election is over where he loses, anything could still happen. PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yeah this seems big. I for one appreciate that these people were too stupid to really cover up their crimes. I can only imagine what new horrors will fall out during discovery and the resulting trials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Sure, but also I'm not gonna wring my hands and sacrifice my mental health on a single poll 15 months before election day that shows Trump may or may not be ahead in a single battleground state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
I'm not saying you have to! Just that the inverse, "Oh yeah, Trump can't win  it's impossible" is the wrong attitude to have.(that is, you don't have to treat it as an immediate threat, but you similarly shouldn't just discount it as being impossible.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:The data itself is half a year old, from before any of these indictments hit, and found a difference so small margin-of-error calculations are a major concern. So? An entire 6 months, you say? If anything, from what I'm following, Trump being indicted and all the poo poo surrounding him only seems to fortify his base, who are convinced that FBI is in league with Soros or some poo poo. His base alone can't win but, like I said, he's running against an 80 year old Joe loving Biden here (who even Democrats don't like) and doesn't need to win the popular vote. He only needs to swing the states that I listed which were very close in 2020. Plenty of dumb, heavily armed, bible toting, angry rednecks in GA, PA and AZ and maybe an equal amount of apathetic dem voters who are hardly what I'd call inspired and fired up to head to the polls to vote for the lesser of two evils again. If I were betting on it, I'd bet that Donald loses (of course) but, right now, I'd put that probability at something around 60/40, if I'm being generous. I also think that a lot of people on this forum consistently make the mistake of assuming we're living in an informed, functioning, healthy and rational society where regular rules and norms mean anything. We're not and they don't. I've never seen a group of people more dug in and inspired than the MAGA folks for a political candidate. Ever. FTR, I'm 56.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I was debating Name Change about Trump being able to win in 2024 and found this: Polls this far out are not only meaningless, they are in general more useless every cycle even as elections close in. '22 was supposed to be a rout. Republicans are getting blown out repeatedly because of abortion and a winning Trump coalition has not materialized since 2016. Like yes Trump winning is a threat. Based on data of what has actually happened, it is very unlikely. The country is politically engaged on a historic level and polling has repeatedly failed to model for it, so you end up even at this stage with horse race polling promoted by the media where the crosstab data is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I've never seen a group of people more dug in and inspired than the MAGA folks for a political candidate. Ever. FTR, I'm 56. I have to think a big part, though certainly not the only part, of why the red hats are so fanatical is that they understand, at least instinctively, that they actually aren't the silent majority (or won't be for much longer), and that like their Confederate predecessors if something passing for popular democracy is allowed to continue they'll face a long downward spiral into political, and therefore also social and cultural, irrelevancy all while those people get to call more and more of the shots. Which is not to fall back on the idea that demographics are destiny, or that progress is inevitable or anything, but that they at least believe something similar in their own warped understandings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Discussing Trump's chances of victory is functionally pointless because it's a low probability event that we all remember happening once before and being highly traumatic, so our lizard brains all react to the mention of it the way your digestive system will to the smell of sweet and sour sauce if Chinese food gave you food poisoning once ten years ago. It's not a low probability event. It may literally happen again next year and there is no way to put the odds at "low"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
The bigger issue, outside of any one poll, is that it has been shown indisputably that Trump tried to steal the last election, but there is no indication yet that that fact has changed the mind of a single 2020 Trump voter. That's a big problem that's not going to just go away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It's not a low probability event. It may literally happen again next year and there is no way to put the odds at "low" Excuse me? What does that mean? How do you know it's not a low probability event? Yeah it could happen, that's what probabilities mean. It's just less likely than other things. That's how math works. What?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Excuse me? What does that mean? The thing where people act like they are utterly baffled by something incredibly simple is irritating. Saying "Discussing Trump's chances of victory is functionally pointless because it's a low probability event" doesn't mean that "Trump has less of a chance of winning than some other things have of happening," it means that his probability of winning is so low it's pointless to discuss, which is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The thing where people act like they are utterly baffled by something incredibly simple is irritating. No it doesn't? Do you just not know math?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
pthighs posted:The bigger issue, outside of any one poll, is that it has been shown indisputably that Trump tried to steal the last election, but there is no indication yet that that fact has changed the mind of a single 2020 Trump voter. On the contrary, candidates who ran in the midterms on the idea that Biden stole the elections ate dirt even harder than those that ran on ending abortion. The diehards were all in, but they were far from every Trump voter in 2016 or 2020. Evidence points to Trump's easiest road to victory being everyone shutting up about the 2020 election. Which doesn't say that's his only possible route, but oh boy will it not be the one taken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
pthighs posted:The bigger issue, outside of any one poll, is that it has been shown indisputably that Trump tried to steal the last election, but there is no indication yet that that fact has changed the mind of a single 2020 Trump voter. The election deniers all underperformed in 2022, when voter turnout was more favorable to Republicans than in 2020. It hasn't changed the mind of most Trump voters but you don't get last year's results without Trump voters voting for Democrats. (the Trump voters who voted for Katie Hobbs are probably not the ones who own one Trump flagged lifted F-350 for each of their Sea-Doo dealerships)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:No it doesn't? This isn't about math it's about people dismissing topics as so unlikely as to be pointless to discuss. Things aren't functionally pointless to discuss because they have only have like a 35% chance of happening or whatever. This isn't how people talk or discuss things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:This isn't about math it's about people dismissing topics as so unlikely as to be pointless to discuss. Things aren't functionally pointless to discuss because they have only have like a 35% chance of happening or whatever. This isn't how people talk or discuss things. 35% is actually a pretty decent chance of something happening, not low at all. What the christ. And no, re-read Heironymous Alloy's post again. They were talking about how this is a dumb discussion because we've all had our heads scrambled by rolling snake-eyes so we naturally trend to emotional and not rational thoughts. They say that in other words right after that sentence. No one was saying that it was a low probability event so it should always be dismissed. That's silly. Unlikely poo poo happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
He sold this country a bill of goods and now the chickens are coming home to roost
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
This page is a great example of why IMO it's silly to even bring up election polls (at all, but especially in this thread).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AntiToxicPeople/status/1690826659430354944?s=20 So apparently Trump just retweeted a photo of the judge posted by someone else. I'm sure this won't end up in a court filing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Election polls over a year outside of an election is just a meaningless trivia fact outside of anything besides short-term campaign strategy. (e.g. "people X don't seem to like Y, I will do Z") So much poo poo can happen between then and when ballots are being cast that one data point is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Election polls over a year outside of an election is just a meaningless trivia fact outside of anything besides short-term campaign strategy. (e.g. "people X don't seem to like Y, I will do Z") Hell, polls during the election are often useless. See Also: 538's model showing Bernie in the lead right up until the entire democratic establishment dropped out and coalesced around Biden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
mutata posted:This page is a great example of why IMO it's silly to even bring up election polls (at all, but especially in this thread). i agree. this is an informative thread that should be unspoiled with "can trump win the 2024 election" derails
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:He won't win. This is the post that really started this derail. Statements like this are irresponsible and dangerous (as dangerous as political rhetoric can be here).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:This is the post that really started this derail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Well it's coming up because Trump's lawyers have no coherent legal strategy and the play is classic Trump, constantly bog down the process with frivolous behavior until the clock runs out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Name Change posted:Well it's coming up because Trump's lawyers have no coherent legal strategy and the play is classic Trump, constantly bog down the process with frivolous behavior until the clock runs out. I mean do they have any actual argument? Like, not a TV talking-head gish gallop but an actual argument they can say in court about how Trump didn't do those crimes he very obviously did. Specifically in the D.C. case right now, they have the tack of arguing that Trump didn't have the corrupt intent requirement. But you can't do that by just going "Nah, he was totally above board, we swearsies," ; there's already enough evidence that it certainly reads like corrupt intent, and that's before we get all the other evidence or have heard (we would assume) very good federal prosecutors underline that evidence for a solid week. To give that argument any teeth, you'd want good evidence of Trump's very specific and moral intent (lol), and I don't know how you even try that without putting Trump on the stand. It's gonna look real weird if he won't say he didn't have corrupt intent to the jurors' faces. And jesus christ, any plan that involves putting Trump on the stand is a bad one. We've seen the depositions. He would get eaten alive on cross-examination. I'm pretty sure my cats could bait him into admitting to everything. Outside of that though? Or in the other trials? Is it just gonna be a repeat of the Alex Jones trials where the defense only makes an opening, a closing, objects to direct questions and does cross? Because we saw how that went.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
100% the lawyers will drop themselves from the case on the first day and try to ask for a few months for a new team to represent Trump. Or Don gets rushed to hospital the night before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:02
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:100% the lawyers will drop themselves from the case on the first day and try to ask for a few months for a new team to represent Trump. Not how it works, lawyers can't quit a case without permission from the court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://twitter.com/AntiToxicPeople/status/1690826659430354944?s=20 One weird trick to expedite your trial!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Or Don gets rushed to hospital the night before. between a body ravaged by diet coke and big macs and him flailing about for any reason to delay, i could see this happening
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
He's done it a couple times so I'm sure he thinks he found some loophole lol 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Excuse me? What does that mean? We don't know that it's not a low-probability event, true. But we also don't know that it is a low-probability event. We don't know the probability of it happening, so we can't really say if the probability is low or high. We do know, however, that quite a few people in 2016 were convinced that a Trump victory was a low-probability event, and that any polls that showed otherwise were simply unreliable for a wide variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And jesus christ, any plan that involves putting Trump on the stand is a bad one. We've seen the depositions. He would get eaten alive on cross-examination. I'm pretty sure my cats could bait him into admitting to everything. I think what's even more hilarious is Jeffrey Clark is as of last week out in the wild literally admitting it was a coup, and they totally were doing a coup. Because democrats winning was an existential crisis. On camera. Which I'm not sure if Ol' Jeff is just completely radicalized or simply that loving stupid. Or both? Either way that's gonna really help Trump's case, for sure. It's not like Jeff can be called as a witness and deny it either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
edit: already posted
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Excuse me? What does that mean? I attended a lecture once where a person from DARPA gave 'probabilities' on events such as humans being contacted by alien life. He gave odds on several other, to me, unknowable events transpiring, and I'm still not sure what they were based on. Maybe they know something we don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2023 01:06
|
|
