Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
Oh so you were calling me mathematically illiterate ok, whatever makes you feel good man.
My claim is that aggregators were staunchly dem, and that the democratic party wanted the perception of a win in the air as it can work to a party advantage and usually does.
Again , ton of leftists right now attack Silver because he doesn't put Harris chances higher
Luciom,
This entire argument is just terrible. First, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC wanted the polls to be skewed in favor of HRC. It's true in some game theory scenarios both inside and outside of politics that undecided people want to be on the winning side. But in politics specifically, it is also true that people tend to stay home when they perceive that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Low turnout is the last thing that Democrats want in presidential elections. There is a reason why, in every election, supporters of the Democratic party do public service announcements encouraging people to vote.
Second, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC actually caused polls to be skewed in favor of HRC.
Third, as you yourself have acknowledged, pollsters were subject to a lot of criticism after the Trump won the 2016 election. We can debate how much of that criticism was valid and how much of it was the product of statistical illiteracy, but in any case, it was entirely foreseeable the pollsters would be skewered if Trump won. Your proposition is these people were willing to take on a significant risk of embarrassment (and perhaps damage to professional reputation) in order to skew polls in favor of HRC. That seems highly improbable to me.
Fourth, a lot of these polling companies have been around for many election cycles. They do not inevitably skew in favor of Democrats. To the contrary, there have been plenty of presidential elections in which the polls correctly suggested that the Democrat would lose.
If I was Trump's speechwriter he would be crushing Kamala by over 10 points.
My parents were 60s radicals so I was raised woke but in the original sense not the current hypersensitive sense.
Deuces,
Based on your self-reporting, it seems obvious that you could outperform nearly everyone in nearly any area. Given your prodigious abilities, should I assume that you are, in fact, a person of considerable importance and influence in the world? And if you aren't a person of considerable importance and influence in the world, should I assume that you have made some sort of deliberate choice to keep a lower profile?
If you were an NFL head coach, could you take the current Panthers roster and win a Super Bowl? Or would the other teams all just quit mid season because they would see there is no point playing against you?
I wouldn't go that far, but I have trouble seeing how anyone couldn't see that Dalton is a much better QB than Young. The whole coaching staff and the locker room had to know this. And yeah, I am the type of person to question authority, obviously. And it could only have been authority of the owner keeping Young in the starting role.
It's funny you choose that example because it is precisely the strategy to be obsequious to power to maintain their relative position that differentiates the liberals from the Left. The situation is emblematic of the liberals relationship to capital. Any Leftist would be stronger on meritocracy and would have absolutely benched Young last season and into this season as well. I might have even had the offensive players vote on it. You, who does not question authority, would have maximized your chances to keep your job by sucking up to the owner who clearly was invested in Young working out. Only when you figured Young's continued starting would hurt your career more than sucking up to the owner would help it would you then lobby to bench Young.
I wouldn't go that far, but I have trouble seeing how anyone couldn't see that Dalton is a much better QB than Young. The whole coaching staff and the locker room had to know this. And yeah, I am the type of person to question authority, obviously. And it could only have been authority of the owner keeping Young in the starting role.
It's funny you choose that example because it is precisely the strategy to be obsequious to power to maintain their relative position that differentiates the liberal
It isn't unusual for terrible teams to let younger players with more upside get experience at the expense of veterans, even if the veteran might give the bad team a somewhat better chance of winning in the immediate term. This is especially true if the team is looking toward its position in the upcoming draft.
The problem is that Young probably doesn't have upside. He never plays well. And that offense was so bad that they were alienating their fan base by continuing to run him out there.
Third, as you yourself have acknowledged, pollsters were subject to a lot of criticism after the Trump won the 2016 election. We can debate how much of that criticism was valid and how much of it was the product of statistical illiteracy, but in any case, it was entirely foreseeable the pollsters would be skewered if Trump won. Your proposition is these people were willing to take on a significant risk of embarrassment (and perhaps damage to professional reputation) in order to skew polls in fa
To be fair his claim is even dumber than that. He’s talking about aggregators who simply took polls and spit out a probability Trump would lose. They have very little power. The polls had Trump losing so the models gave Clinton a higher chance of winning. Any aggregator saying Trump was 70% to win would have been ignored. People that had Clinton at 99% made a basic error of saying (Trump needs to outperform his polling by 2% to win, the odds of that are 20%, so the odds of him doing it in PA, MI and WI are about .8% when really it was much closer to 20%.
Luciom,
This entire argument is just terrible. First, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC wanted the polls to be skewed in favor of HRC. It's true in some game theory scenarios both inside and outside of politics that undecided people want to be on the winning side. But in politics specifically, it is also true that people tend to stay home when they perceive that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Low turnout is the last thing that Democrats want in presidential elec
139
To be fair his claim is even dumber than. That. He’s talking about aggregators who simply took polls and spit out a probability Trump would lose. They have very little power. The polls had Trump losing so the models gave Clinton a higher chance of winning. Any aggregator saying Trump was 70% to win would have been ignored. People that had Clinton at 99% made a basic error of saying (Trump needs to outperform his polling by 2% to win, the odds of that are 20%, so the odds of him doing it
While this explanation seems entirely reasonable, it leaves no room for malfeasance by "teh leftists", so I'm afraid we will sadly have to discard it.
Wikipedia is a heavily left wing biased source. You shouldn't rely on them to give you factual information.
There may have been some discussion about alternate slates, but nothing substantial ever came of it that I am aware of. However the proposed congressional challenge vote to suspend certification while ballot anomalies in certain states were addressed was legitimate, and would likely have been tabled if the protesters hadn't invaded the Capitol. I believe that is what Trump was referring to
Some discussion? Bro you realized that there were people trying to hand the alternate slates to the VP so he could count them, right? This was on the day of certification. At the behest of the president. With him putting Pence on blast through twitter and in his speech
I wouldn't go that far, but I have trouble seeing how anyone couldn't see that Dalton is a much better QB than Young. The whole coaching staff and the locker room had to know this. And yeah, I am the type of person to question authority, obviously. And it could only have been authority of the owner keeping Young in the starting role.
It's funny you choose that example because it is precisely the strategy to be obsequious to power to maintain their relative position that differentiates the liberal
I don’t think I could win with the panthers no matter what. I also don’t think I could have trump leading by 10 either. But I have a non delusional understanding of my own abilities.
As for Young, I didn’t know he’d be as bad as he has been, no idea CJ Stroud would be as good and don’t know where Caleb Williams will end up either. You probably already know though.
Some discussion? Bro you realized that there were people trying to hand the alternate slates to the VP so he could count them, right? This was on the day of certification. At the behest of the president. With him putting Pence on blast through twitter and in his speech
The guy is (most likely) a previously banned bad faith clown/troll. You're wasting your time.
Luciom,
This entire argument is just terrible. First, you have no evidence that the Clinton campaign or the DNC wanted the polls to be skewed in favor of HRC. It's true in some game theory scenarios both inside and outside of politics that undecided people want to be on the winning side. But in politics specifically, it is also true that people tend to stay home when they perceive that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Low turnout is the last thing that Democrats want in presidential elec
Try to reread my argument though, given it was about AGGREGATORS not polling companies.
To be fair his claim is even dumber than that. He’s talking about aggregators who simply took polls and spit out a probability Trump would lose. They have very little power. The polls had Trump losing so the models gave Clinton a higher chance of winning. Any aggregator saying Trump was 70% to win would have been ignored. People that had Clinton at 99% made a basic error of saying (Trump needs to outperform his polling by 2% to win, the odds of that are 20%, so the odds of him doing it in PA,
Dunno what you mean by that, they were discussed 24/7.
Yes they made a similar "mistake" in your eyes as that done by some insurers with subprime mortgages, "what are the odds the same bad thing with default rates happens in northern Ohio, and southern Nevada", except it's such a silly thing to imagine they don't know how something can correlate nationwide and that those aren't independent events, that you have to presume bad faith
Deuces,
Based on your self-reporting, it seems obvious that you could outperform nearly everyone in nearly any area. Given your prodigious abilities, should I assume that you are, in fact, a person of considerable importance and influence in the world? And if you aren't a person of considerable importance and influence in the world, should I assume that you have made some sort of deliberate choice to keep a lower profile?
Just because I say I could guide the Trump campaign to victory doesn't mean scores of others couldn't also do so. Trump is listening to his fail son and out of touch billionaires. I think most political strategists and many observers could see much better paths towards a Trump victory. Just because I say I could do something doesn't mean I alone could do it.
I don't really believe in individual influence on the grand chessboard. I think that is a less and less significant phenomena over time. Lincoln yeah ok. It mattered that Lincoln the individual existed and was the way he was. And if he hadn't been killed we might be living in a radically different world now. Cut to the 90's and to Bill Clinton who famously asked (paraphrasing) "so I've got to do what a bunch of bond traders tell me to do?". Even Elon Musk has to go to Israel and kiss the ring because he tweeted the wrong tweet. He realized the Twitter business model depends on cooperation with other capitalists. He can't even do whatever he wants and he's the richest man in the world.
Power and influence are institutional phenomena. One could point at Trump, a political phenomenon very unique and very much tied to the specific person of Trump. But when he was in office he didn't do anything that upset the establishment outside of his rhetoric. And when he issued the order to assassinate Assad the generals told him no we're not doing that. Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. Once he got in we saw all the nastiest swamp monsters from Goldman etc. appointed to powerful positions.
Finance capital runs this. Other institutions have some influence. Individuals don't really matter and the ones who are delusional enough to think they do are the ones who cozy up to capital are in reality are just sitting on daddy's lap pretending to steer the car while the superstructures with actual power are there to correct any deviance from he path of "infinite" growth and eventual self destruction.
I don’t know anyone else who thinks they can have Trump winning by double digits other than Trump himself.
I consider it in the context of the population being dissatisfied with either choice and there being a lot of potential for more popular candidates. It's hard to remember but there was a time when large portions of the population were voting for something rather than for the negation of the worse option. A pretty small percentage of people actually like these candidates. Kamala didn't even win a primary vote even with all the backing of the establishment power. There is a lot to attack there and the line of her being a Marxist is one of the dumbest attack lines which could be taken which is even plausibly effective. Trump could make himself look a lot more attractive by exploiting the gap between what people want and and the policies in place and he could make Kamala look a lot worse if the attacks he chose weren't based on wingnut derangement.
My predictions are better than anyone you know or have seen on tv. You must have missed it when I deconstructed the flaws in 538's predictions on Trump some years ago - before the outcome of course. The only thing I've got wrong ITF is was Russia going to invade Ukraine. You show me one poster who actually makes predictions harder than will the sun come up tomorrow and who has a good record. Most of you are too scared to make predictions, just coming in after saying oh I knew it.
You should blog your 6 months worth of predictions and we can revisit them and your skill set later rather than just claim how good they are after the fact.
This is from like 15 years ago and probably too obscure but does anyone remember a thread in OOT by a guy who was writing for advice on how to deal with a delusional friend who was 22 and convinced he was going to make the NBA? He didn’t even make the high school team or go to college; he lived with his mom worked some menial job and spent all his free time playing at 24 hour fitness and watching nba mix tapes. He was actually pretty good, basically one of the top handful of guys that played at the gym. But he legit thought and told people about how he was going to play in the NBA. It was really sad more than anything because the guy wasn’t a jerk or mean spirited. This recent conversation reminded me of that.
This is from like 15 years ago and probably too obscure but does anyone remember a thread in OOT by a guy who was writing for advice on how to deal with a delusional friend who was 22 and convinced he was going to make the NBA? He didn’t even make the high school team or go to college; he lived with his mom worked some menial job and spent all his free time playing at 24 hour fitness and watching nba mix tapes. He was actually pretty good, basically one of the top handful of guys that
Deuces said he's in his mid-40s now, you sure this wasn't 25 years ago?
Oh, you said he wasn't a jerk or mean-spirited, never mind.
was montel with 2 dates or just kamala and a friend?
This is from like 15 years ago and probably too obscure but does anyone remember a thread in OOT by a guy who was writing for advice on how to deal with a delusional friend who was 22 and convinced he was going to make the NBA? He didn’t even make the high school team or go to college; he lived with his mom worked some menial job and spent all his free time playing at 24 hour fitness and watching nba mix tapes. He was actually pretty good, basically one of the top handful of guys that played
When I was in my early 20s, a friend of mine from high school told me that he was going to spend some time trying to make the PGA tour. When I asked him why that was his plan, he said, "thousands of people get paid a lot of money to play a game. Why shouldn't I be one of them?"
This guy was just an OK athlete. He was not a competitive golfer in high school. He didn't play golf in college. He had just been playing a lot recently and had gotten down to a 10 handicap or whatever.
Needless to say, my friend did not end up playing on the PGA tour.
