Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
anyway no matter what you guys think of my take and how much you despise me or think i am an idiot and so on, can you please stop bringing it up as an OT constantly and me having to reinvent the wheel from the beginning every time, denying claims by ecriture and others that misrepresent what i wrote? i mean i get it, you think i am dumb and so on, make a thread about it so at least in the thread about what's going to happen now that trump won we don't waste time about that.
I assume (or hope) he is saying that the women still are expected to skew left of the men in these groups. The fact there are no men just makes it uninteresting
simialrly with STEM degrees. i.e it's about the skew among those with/without within that subgroup
I would assume "women truck drivers of Alabama" to skew to the left of "men truck drivers of Alabama", wouldn't you without other data?
Remember it's about STEM degree vs non STEM degree not STEM degree vs the whole population
You're a priori assuming that the male-female split is a universal constant that can't be overridden by other criteria, and I'm trying to demonstrate that you need to show more work. All the toy examples I've been giving demonstrate that the set of subgroups where your assumption doesn't hold is nonzero. Therefore, you need to show work to demonstrate that it does hold for the subgroup of your choice.
In other words, being a truck driver from Alabama is more indicative of your voting preferences than being female. You need to show work to demonstrate that being a STEM degree holder is less indicative of your voting preferences than being male.
Or, yet in other words, why is "male - female" the preferred lens through which we view all subgroups until proven otherwise? Why not "blond - brunet" or "tall - short" or "STEM degree holder - non STEM degree holder". Nobody has shown any work to explain why this is a preferred reference frame.
anyway no matter what you guys think of my take and how much you despise me or think i am an idiot and so on, can you please stop bringing it up as an OT constantly and me having to reinvent the wheel from the beginning every time, denying claims by ecriture and others that misrepresent what i wrote? i mean i get it, you think i am dumb and so on, make a thread about it so at least in the thread about what's going to happen now that trump won we don't waste time about that.
From the guy who manages to insert a marxist/leftist insult/reference in 50% of his posts that bold.
Spoiler
It's bold jerry, bold!
anyway no matter what you guys think of my take and how much you despise me or think i am an idiot and so on, can you please stop bringing it up as an OT constantly and me having to reinvent the wheel from the beginning every time, denying claims by ecriture and others that misrepresent what i wrote? i mean i get it, you think i am dumb and so on, make a thread about it so at least in the thread about what's going to happen now that trump won we don't waste time about that.
Even if I despise you, that’s not why you are getting blasted here. You statistical methodology is clearly flawed.
Generally, you cherry pick the data to prove your theory rather than using the data to arrive at a theory. It’s politics so it happens a lot, but you take it to the extreme.
Even if I despise you, that’s not why you are getting blasted here. You statistical methodology is clearly flawed.
Generally, you cherry pick the data to prove your theory rather than using the data to arrive at a theory. It’s politics so it happens a lot, but you take it to the extreme.
Basically, this. But he's not cherry-picking data, he's cherry-picking arguments. And, to the casual reader, a perfunctory aside like "well, we obviously know that men skew Trump" might seem like common sense and beyond reproach. The thing is, it isn't, and when he gets called out on it, he has a ****ing meltdown.
As a general observation, it's fairly obvious to most of the decent posters here who is a pseudo-intellectual and who is an actual intellectual. I think Luciom fancies himself as an actual intellectual. Someone should tell him that actual intellectuals don't have a habit of opining authoritatively about topics they have no clue about other than what they've learnt from cursory Google searches.
I will add though, in the interests of balance, that he's not the only one guilty of the transgressions enumerated above, and the guilty parties have been on "my side".
The thing is that males and females have personality differences and it's for those reasons that more males tend to go into STEM fields than women and it's those same personality differences that are causing males to be more conservative.
So Luciom isn't even wrong he's just leaving out a step.
The thing is that males and females have personality differences and it's for those reasons that more males tend to go into STEM fields than women and it's those same personality differences that are causing males to be more conservative.
So Luciom isn't even wrong he's just leaving out a step.
That is at least showing some work. There is a little more nuance to it than that, but it's at least attempting to address the elephant.
By the way, just intuitively, I don't disagree with the conclusion. The quasi-statistical justification was absolute dogshit, on par with his cite for chat bots being left biased (you should check that out for lols), and I'll call that out all day. Doubly so when the prick literally accuses me of bad faith when I expended a nonzero amount of effort discussing this very issue with him.
In fact, his statistical justification is literally against statistical rules. This is the reason pollsters need random samples, as ed'a so perspicaciously pointed out. So if he wants to argue that his sample is as good as a random sample for correlation between trait x and voting y, he needs to do the work, not me.
You're a priori assuming that the male-female split is a universal constant that can't be overridden by other criteria, and I'm trying to demonstrate that you need to show more work. All the toy examples I've been giving demonstrate that the set of subgroups where your assumption doesn't hold is nonzero. Therefore, you need to show work to demonstrate that it does hold for the subgroup of your choice.
In other words, being a truck driver from Alabama is more indicative of your voting preferences
Because we know for a fact men voted for trump a lot more than women did. There are other predictors as i mentioned (like atheist/evangelical divide, urban-rural divide and so on), but afaik we don't have data about how those other predictors skew among degree subgroups while we do about men vs women taking degrees by discipline.
Even if being a truck driver from Alabama is more indicative of your voting preferences than being female , the rest is a non sequity.
I don't need to show work to demonstrate that being a STEM degree holder is less indicative than being male because i am not comparing STEM degree holders with the rest of the population, just with degree holders (!!!!).
I don't have to prove that "male-female is a constant", that's what the prior is once you you know the gap exists, it's people claiming that prior doesn't hold for a specific subgroup of the population (degree holders) that have to prove that (!!!).
Given we know that men vote trump more than women, for ANY subgroup the prior will be "men with that characteristic will vote trump more than women with that characteristic". And a very strong one at that (given how big the men-women gap is).
Among truck drivers, among every age sub-set of the population, among nurses, among people with disability, among religious people, among married people and so on and on, we will start from "unless proven otherwise, men with that trait voted trump more than women with that trait".
And btw we did also produce data on the skew of professions (2016) , professors of various disciplines (2018) and so on all pointing toward the same idea that stem degree holders are more rightwing than other degree holders.
In fact, his statistical justification is literally against statistical rules. This is the reason pollsters need random samples, as ed'a so perspicaciously pointed out. So if he wants to argue that his sample is as good as a random sample for correlation between trait x and voting y, he needs to do the work, not me.
These is the bullshit i already answered above more than once and you can't bother to read the answer i guess.
Btw the pollsters don't have a random sample and they correct their sample because they know (or they think they can estimate) HOW the non-randomness operates for the trait they are trying to measure.
If you poll a completly unknown population for the first time what do you think you would do?
Btw to anyone who thinks that STEM degree holders voted trump LESS than other degree holders, which degree holders voted trump relatively more?
Because we know for a fact men voted for trump a lot more than women did. There are other predictors as i mentioned (like atheist/evangelical divide, urban-rural divide and so on), but afaik we don't have data about how those other predictors skew among degree subgroups while we do about men vs women taking degrees by discipline.
Even if being a truck driver from Alabama is more indicative of your voting preferences than being female , the rest is a non sequity.
I don't need to show work to demon
I've explained this in every way I know how. You have a mental defect that blinds you to the fact that you are wrong on it.
Given we know that men vote trump more than women, for ANY subgroup the prior will be "men with that characteristic will vote trump more than women with that characteristic".
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but you haven't shown it is. I have now given plenty of toy examples where it's not true. You haven't addressed them at all.
Let's check the scoreboard for those pro-palestine "Harris didn't earn my vote" people to see how their choice to not keep trump out of office is going for them.
Pam Bondi: Pick to replace Matt Gaetz wants to deport pro-Palestine protestors
Benedict Smith
Fri, November 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM CST
oof
Btw to anyone who thinks that STEM degree holders voted trump LESS than other degree holders, which degree holders voted trump relatively more?
You don’t even know that in America, children are allowed to bring their own food to school and eat it. One can only imagine what else you do not have a clue about. It was a good run, but it’s over. You’ve exposed yourself as a total fraud. Bye.
If you poll a completly unknown population for the first time what do you think you would do?
Me personally?
If I wanted to make the argument you're making, I'd argue genetics and predisposition. I'd argue that we should give more weight to innate factors than learned factors. Being male is more ingrained than being a truck driver from Alabama.
This also requires us to accept that we are giving weighting to factors, which you refuse to do, and accept that "male - female" is as much a factor as "truck driver- non truck driver", but with just more subjective weighting, which you refuse to do, and generally just be a little smarter, which you either refuse to or are incapable of doing.
All that is way more persuasive than what you've been doing, which appears to be "if I repeat it often enough, then people might accept it as true."
If you know absolutely nothing about the non-random process yes. If you do, that's what you use to correct for the non-randomness.
The "non-random" process has to be treated as random if you have absolutely no information about it.
Imagine there are 10k people selected at random across a population. Someone comes and divide them arbitrarily in 10 1k groups. You pick the group and have 0 idea of the criteria used by the guy who divided the group, and start measuring those 1k people.
Your uncertainty
This isn't entirely correct either. It sounds like the person who is dividing the 10k into 1k groups isn't doing so arbitrarily but rather is using criteria that are not visible to you. In that case, your starting assumption should be that data from the subgroup likely will be different than data collected from the larger group. And without knowing anything about the criteria used to create the 1k groups, it's impossible to speculate about the magnitude or the direction of the "errors" reflected in the data collected from the subgroup.
To give a very obvious example, if we were measuring what percentage of the population thought tattoos were cool, and the criteria we were using to create subgroups was "do you have a tattoo", then the data from a subgroup consisting entirely of people who have tattoos is going to be wildly different than the data from the entire population.
This isn't entirely correct either. It sounds like the person who is dividing the 10k into 1k groups isn't doing so arbitrarily but rather is using criteria that are not visible to you. In that case, your starting assumption should be that data from the subgroup likely will be different than data collected from the larger group. And without knowing anything about the criteria used to create the 1k groups, it's impossible to speculate about the magnitude or the direction of the "errors" reflec
**** me, it's the example I gave 3 days ago. And then again 2 days ago. And then again 1 day ago. Let's see if he gets it this time.
I'll lay 100:1 he does not.
I find it funny that this much time is being devoted talking to a person that thinks you have to assume non-random samples will converge with random samples. It's a complete waste of time. Like trying to explain math to someone that doesn't know how to count.
I find it funny that this much time is being devoted talking to a person that thinks you have to assume non-random samples will converge with random samples. It's a complete waste of time. Like trying to explain math to someone that doesn't know how to count.
He's clearly not a complete moron. I wouldn't be trying to explain this sort of complicated 9th grade stuff to Victor or Playbig.
He's clearly not a complete moron. I wouldn't be trying to explain this sort of complicated 9th grade stuff to Victor or Playbig.
Yeah, I mean I get it, but he's also extremely resistant to learning. My first instinct is always to help people understand things, but I'm pretty quick to move on to ridicule when someone refuses to learn.
Btw to anyone who thinks that STEM degree holders voted trump LESS than other degree holders, which degree holders voted trump relatively more?
I think the better questions is, has Luciom proven with statistics using data from 2016, now 2018, that in 2024 STEM degree holders voted more for Trump.
And I would answer in the negative.
I think the better questions is, has Luciom proven with statistics using data from 2016, now 2018, that in 2024 STEM degree holders voted more for Trump.
And I would answer in the negative.
Pretty much this. Luciom's conclusion might well be correct. But this method of proving his claim is hopelessly flawed.
Pretty much this. Luciom's conclusion might well be correct. But this method of proving his claim is hopelessly flawed.
Right? You'd think that a poster on a poker forum, of all ****ing places, would know to not be so results oriented. He's literally working backwards from what (he assumes to be) the correct conclusion.
Alright, time to change it up? You guys aren't bored of weeks of STEM voting arguments yet?
This is fkn funny:
H5N1 found in raw milk – the same drink promoted by America’s next health chief
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen...
Anyone want to go in on me starting a raw milk farm? We can package and sell it as: “No Woke Milk” for $50 a gallon.
And if people get sick and die, we're legally protected because it says right on the label that you won’t wake up.
I think there's money to be made here.
