walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
He won't win first district . Maine splits, hilary wins 1, trump wins 1
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
He won't win first district . Maine splits, hilary wins 1, trump wins 1
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
That guy is Nate Silver. He came to politics out of Sabermetrics. He came to national prominence in 2012 when he was essentially perfect not only in all his predictions but also drilling deep down to the crosstabs. Then in 2014 he had a couple fairly high profile miscalls, and this year he greatly underestimated Trump's chance of winning the nomination (he says in retrospect that their models had Trump as a serious candidate and he simply didn't believe it).
I really like Silver because I have never seen him say or do anything that misrepresents either his particular numbers or the science of sampling and statistical analysis. I would like to think that if I had gone in his trajectory I would have been one of the people like Harry Enten writing for his site now.
He's also a first class nerd and nerds rule!
That guy is Nate Silver. He came to politics out of Sabermetrics. He came to national prominence in 2012 when he was essentially perfect not only in all his predictions but also drilling deep down to the crosstabs. Then in 2014 he had a couple fairly high profile miscalls, and this year he greatly underestimated Trump's chance of winning the nomination (he says in retrospect that their models had Trump as a serious candidate and he simply didn't believe it).
I really like Silver because I have never seen him say or do anything that misrepresents either his particular numbers or the science of sampling and statistical analysis. I would like to think that if I had gone in his trajectory I would have been one of the people like Harry Enten writing for his site now.
He's also a first class nerd and nerds rule!
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I actually have concerns that this guy has spent more time smoking dope than paying attention. Seriously, is it too much to ask for a daily briefing or fire up your phone to Google News while you're dropping your morning deuce?
I actually have concerns that this guy has spent more time smoking dope than paying attention. Seriously, is it too much to ask for a daily briefing or fire up your phone to Google News while you're dropping your morning deuce?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
After this one he's disqualified himself. He's dumb. Anyone voting for him is voting against their own self interests. He's not qualified for dog catcher.
After this one he's disqualified himself. He's dumb. Anyone voting for him is voting against their own self interests. He's not qualified for dog catcher.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I'm starting to like Sam Wang more at the PEC.
http://election.princeton.edu/
I'm starting to like Sam Wang more at the PEC.
http://election.princeton.edu/
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
He's not dumb. He did make a huge gaffe on Aleppo, but I actually believe his explanation (he fixated on it as an acronym and thought, "what the heck is that?). I can completely imagine that happening.
It is interesting, though, that it killed him while Trump says a half dozen things a day that are worse and can't be harmed.
He's not dumb. He did make a huge gaffe on Aleppo, but I actually believe his explanation (he fixated on it as an acronym and thought, "what the heck is that?). I can completely imagine that happening.
It is interesting, though, that it killed him while Trump says a half dozen things a day that are worse and can't be harmed.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
This time he said no one got hurt in two terrorist attacks. He's out to lunch. He's dumb. Period.
This time he said no one got hurt in two terrorist attacks. He's out to lunch. He's dumb. Period.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Meh. His brain just short-circuited. That's OK. Hillary told FBI so; they bought it.
Meh. His brain just short-circuited. That's OK. Hillary told FBI so; they bought it.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I hadn't heard about that.
Hey, anything that drives people off the third tickets this time is good. I can't imagine anybody voting for Trump with a sense of resignation. You are either inspired by him or you view him as a charlatan and a cancer.
Nobody picks ISIS as their second choice.
I hadn't heard about that.
Hey, anything that drives people off the third tickets this time is good. I can't imagine anybody voting for Trump with a sense of resignation. You are either inspired by him or you view him as a charlatan and a cancer.
Nobody picks ISIS as their second choice.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I don't think Johnson is dumb necessarily, but he seems to me to be not very interested in foreign affairs and has no need to research the subject because he has no chance of being President. Doesn't make him a bad guy but something to consider when voting 3rd party. If the guy doesn't believe in his own candidacy, why should you?
I don't think Johnson is dumb necessarily, but he seems to me to be not very interested in foreign affairs and has no need to research the subject because he has no chance of being President. Doesn't make him a bad guy but something to consider when voting 3rd party. If the guy doesn't believe in his own candidacy, why should you?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
You're starting to freak me out. While we agree politically on, I think, next to nothing, the idea that somebody smart might actually vote for Trump is really worrying me.
Some elections are referred to as "hinge" -- where in retrospect we made a dramatic choice between two dramatically different paths by voting for A or B. 1932 is the obvious one. 1980 is another. Some say 1968 was another, I don't really know.
2016 seems like a "trap door" election. Voting for Hillary isn't really going to change much -- we'll still muddle along the best we can in this Bill Clinton / Obama "third way" approach. Things will gradually get better or, perhaps, gradually get worse. In the 2012 election, both sides were pretty much that -- there were difference and some of them even mattered, but they were bites around the edges. The main arc was the same.
Voting for Trump is the closest this country has even been invited to free fall to hell. Unless everything everybody knows about the politics and economics of this country is flat wrong, he will be at best a disaster -- a hood ornament where, behind him, cronies run wild with no oversight and no fear of consequences, while internationally the world economy seizes up with every stupid or repellent tweet. Attacks will keep happening, as he has no plan to deal with them, but the reactions will be wild pendulum swings and deep cuts into civil liberties, while a directionless economic policy disincentifies smart money to remain in US assets and only speculators and financial looters are willing to endure the levels of risk.
You're starting to freak me out. While we agree politically on, I think, next to nothing, the idea that somebody smart might actually vote for Trump is really worrying me.
Some elections are referred to as "hinge" -- where in retrospect we made a dramatic choice between two dramatically different paths by voting for A or B. 1932 is the obvious one. 1980 is another. Some say 1968 was another, I don't really know.
2016 seems like a "trap door" election. Voting for Hillary isn't really going to change much -- we'll still muddle along the best we can in this Bill Clinton / Obama "third way" approach. Things will gradually get better or, perhaps, gradually get worse. In the 2012 election, both sides were pretty much that -- there were difference and some of them even mattered, but they were bites around the edges. The main arc was the same.
Voting for Trump is the closest this country has even been invited to free fall to hell. Unless everything everybody knows about the politics and economics of this country is flat wrong, he will be at best a disaster -- a hood ornament where, behind him, cronies run wild with no oversight and no fear of consequences, while internationally the world economy seizes up with every stupid or repellent tweet. Attacks will keep happening, as he has no plan to deal with them, but the reactions will be wild pendulum swings and deep cuts into civil liberties, while a directionless economic policy disincentifies smart money to remain in US assets and only speculators and financial looters are willing to endure the levels of risk.
aparch
Acetaminamerican
Thank you for remembering better than I can (or at least were able to look it up, cuz I didn't).
I knew he had been around a while, and always did enjoy his more grounded statstics.
If I'm not mistaken again, didn't he also call Brexit as a "stay/safe" call?
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Again, I'll stay home before I'll vote for Trump or Clinton. I'm really regretting that it's "Johnson/Weld" and not "Weld/Johnson".
As far as your last paragraph regarding Trump ("free fall to hell"?), I'm pretty sure much the same was written about Obama and GW Bush.
The epic hyperbole (and that is what it is), then, now, is what really shuts me down. The system is set up to preclude tyrants. That's why there are three branches. We elect a President, not a king. If the President is that bad there are mechanisms.
Allow me to go on record now: If Trump is elected, and if he is as advertised by Kep, (a) the Republic will survive, and (b) the Democrats will hold the White House for the vast, vast majority of the remainder of my life.
Again, I'll stay home before I'll vote for Trump or Clinton. I'm really regretting that it's "Johnson/Weld" and not "Weld/Johnson".
As far as your last paragraph regarding Trump ("free fall to hell"?), I'm pretty sure much the same was written about Obama and GW Bush.
The epic hyperbole (and that is what it is), then, now, is what really shuts me down. The system is set up to preclude tyrants. That's why there are three branches. We elect a President, not a king. If the President is that bad there are mechanisms.
Allow me to go on record now: If Trump is elected, and if he is as advertised by Kep, (a) the Republic will survive, and (b) the Democrats will hold the White House for the vast, vast majority of the remainder of my life.
Last edited:
aparch
Acetaminamerican
I'd just love to get a constant paycheck and help crunch the numbers.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I just can't believe this. I think Trump's floor is 29%, just as Dubya's was. That is the Republican Mendoza Line, below which is nothing but inchoate resentment and the cessation of all mental activity unrelated to violence.
Every point above 29 is one we can and should contest. Those people are reasonable; they probably have real reservations about giving the keys to this drunk. They just really hate the other driver.
I just can't believe this. I think Trump's floor is 29%, just as Dubya's was. That is the Republican Mendoza Line, below which is nothing but inchoate resentment and the cessation of all mental activity unrelated to violence.
Every point above 29 is one we can and should contest. Those people are reasonable; they probably have real reservations about giving the keys to this drunk. They just really hate the other driver.
The other 2 EV goes to who wins the state. They can't split.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I am using my full consideration before making that statement. He and his followers are that dangerous to me. I think you may even agree that this candidate would be a dictator if afforded the chance. You simply think that we have circuit breakers in place to stop him. Then let me put it this way: he shouldn't have the support of a major party and all their camp followers but he does, because they are playing to their personal political advantage. What makes you so sure that when Trump is president and he can't get his way (because of Congressional gridlock and our checks and balances) he and the Freedom Caucus won't advocate dramatic changes in process, even in law, and the GOP -- who will directly benefit by getting their agenda fast-tracked -- will sagely refrain from taking advantage, even at the risk of a landslide reprisal in the midterms? And what makes you think a judiciary of his appointees will stop him? Imagine also a serious terrorist attack or two to get the country good and panicked as a backdrop, just to make things spicey.
Trump is categorically different from every nominee in our nation's history. That is not hyperbole. Hitherto the worst we've had have been the occasional menace to good governance. This man is a menace to the continuation of American republican government.
How many red flags do you need?
Or do you think American democracy is naturally immortal, and even if highly frightened majorities were willing to throw it away for the sake of their safety it would magically resist them?
I am using my full consideration before making that statement. He and his followers are that dangerous to me. I think you may even agree that this candidate would be a dictator if afforded the chance. You simply think that we have circuit breakers in place to stop him. Then let me put it this way: he shouldn't have the support of a major party and all their camp followers but he does, because they are playing to their personal political advantage. What makes you so sure that when Trump is president and he can't get his way (because of Congressional gridlock and our checks and balances) he and the Freedom Caucus won't advocate dramatic changes in process, even in law, and the GOP -- who will directly benefit by getting their agenda fast-tracked -- will sagely refrain from taking advantage, even at the risk of a landslide reprisal in the midterms? And what makes you think a judiciary of his appointees will stop him? Imagine also a serious terrorist attack or two to get the country good and panicked as a backdrop, just to make things spicey.
Trump is categorically different from every nominee in our nation's history. That is not hyperbole. Hitherto the worst we've had have been the occasional menace to good governance. This man is a menace to the continuation of American republican government.
How many red flags do you need?
Or do you think American democracy is naturally immortal, and even if highly frightened majorities were willing to throw it away for the sake of their safety it would magically resist them?
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Hillary wins 3, Trump wins 1. There's four EVs
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
First, I'm not so sure if given the Presidency I may not befall my lesser angels. I'll be a benevolent dictator, honest.
And I do believe in the system of governance, the Constitution, that got us here.
But when you say, " ... he shouldn't have the support of a major party and all their camp followers but he does, because of they are playing to their personal political advantage,"
Firstly, who are you to decide which candidate a major party should choose. I won't dare claim that for the Ds, Rs, Ls, et al. I know who I'd prefer, but I may not be in the majority.
Next, when, ever, in the history of mankind, has "personal political advantage" not been Rule 1 in politics.
Trump is nothing new; he's just the despicable response to the despicable system we've grown, an "outsider"
, writ large and on full display.
His primary opponent? She's the epic despicable insider of the despicable system.
What an awesome choice.
And yes, the system is despicable right now. But it's not irreparable. I do believe there are still a few good people out there ... somewhere.
First, I'm not so sure if given the Presidency I may not befall my lesser angels. I'll be a benevolent dictator, honest.
And I do believe in the system of governance, the Constitution, that got us here.
But when you say, " ... he shouldn't have the support of a major party and all their camp followers but he does, because of they are playing to their personal political advantage,"
Firstly, who are you to decide which candidate a major party should choose. I won't dare claim that for the Ds, Rs, Ls, et al. I know who I'd prefer, but I may not be in the majority.
Next, when, ever, in the history of mankind, has "personal political advantage" not been Rule 1 in politics.
Trump is nothing new; he's just the despicable response to the despicable system we've grown, an "outsider"
, writ large and on full display. His primary opponent? She's the epic despicable insider of the despicable system.
What an awesome choice.
And yes, the system is despicable right now. But it's not irreparable. I do believe there are still a few good people out there ... somewhere.
Last edited:
- Status