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.
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".
I've already given you a bunch of toy examples of why this doesn't hold. I'm beginning to suspect that you lack the intellectual horsepower to understand what I've been saying and extrapolate it out to the real life scenario.
I've already given you a bunch of toy examples of why this doesn't hold. I'm beginning to suspect that you lack the intellectual horsepower to understand what I've been saying and extrapolate it out to the real life scenario.
Remember in Megalopolis when Jon Voight shot that dude in the butt with an arrow?
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.
Now do all universes for all possible criteria and see how tattoos distribute in the infinite 1k groups on average and so how informative the random 1k group tatoo distribution is of the original 10k group, if you actually know nothing about the criteria.
In other words: there might be some set of non random criteria that mess up you a lot, or even completely like in your example, but that's a tiny number out of all the possible non random criteria and you need a reason to believe you are in the small directionally skewed subset of criteria.
The non random 1k groups will on average distribute identically to the 10k until you start claiming something about the criteria.
Non random = random if you know nothing at all about the structure of the nonrandomness .
Staying in your example, imagine 1000 different individuals sorting (they don't know WHAT you are looking for in the population ok? The just sort the 10k people in 10 groups).
You need ALL the sorting individuals to eliminate ALL information about the trait you are measuring in order to claim that sampling the non random groups yields 0 information.
Back to your example
You measure your random group non randomly sorted and find 13% of them have tattoos.
Do you have the same info as before measuring this, about how many tattoos are there in the actual population, or not?
[You claim no, I claim yes]
What's the best estimate of the population tatoo incidence if you know absolutely nothing else about the population?
[It's 13%]
The fact that in some universes 13% is as good as a random guess would have been (not informative at all), doesn't mean in all universes it's a completely random guess (it isn't in all universes where the sorting criteria don't impact tatoo incidence, which are quite a lot of them although you don't know the fraction)
and as long as in at least one universe it's a better than random guess,
then it's your best guess in your universe until you have more info.
I've already given you a bunch of toy examples of why this doesn't hold. I'm beginning to suspect that you lack the intellectual horsepower to understand what I've been saying and extrapolate it out to the real life scenario.
No you didn't. You tried "women truckdrivers from Alabama" for example but you didn't understand that's not a counter to my claim.
In fact it isn't because men truck drivers from Alabama almost certainly have voted for trump more than women truck drivers from Alabama and you don't even tried to argue otherwise.
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.
This is interesting because for anything else you wouldn't answer the same.
Imagine you want to know the crime rate differentials (just which are has more criminality) of 2 neighbouring areas in 2024 , a data you don't have and no one else in the conversation has. [who voted for Trump more? STEM or non STEM degree holders?]
Those 2 areas make up a whole city. [STEM and non STEM make up all the degree holders]
The city has decreasing criminality overall, and you are certain about this [degree holders voted less from trump in 2024 than they did in 2016]
Area A had much higher criminality than Area B in 2016 [STEM-degree professions voted republicans more than non STEM-degree professions]
Area A had more robberies than Area B in 2018 [College professors for STEM disciplines are more often registered republicans than college professors for non STEM discipline in 2018]
You correctly realize that there is a sky high chance that Area A still have higher criminality than Area B of the city, unless something very unique and rare happened in the following 6 years.
But nope. nada. It's luciom making this very basic very simple very logic argument for something you would hate to be true so you have to deny basic logic works.
Lol PAST DATA is useful to estimate PRESENT DATA if you don't have PRESENTE MEASUREMENTS, what the hell of a counter is it to claim like a joke it obviously isn't?
No you didn't. You tried "women truckdrivers from Alabama" for example but you didn't understand that's not a counter to my claim.
In fact it isn't because men truck drivers from Alabama almost certainly have voted for trump more than women truck drivers from Alabama and you don't even tried to argue otherwise.
Dude, this is like saying "truck drivers with lightning bolt tattoos certainly have voted Trump more than truck drivers without lightning bolt tattoos".
You are assigning a weighting. You are saying that male-female split overrides anything else. It overrides the blue hair-non blue hair split. It overrides the truck river - non truck driver split. It overrides the lighting bolt tattoo - non lightning bolt tattoo split.
YOU DEMONSTRATED NO ****ING WORK TO SHOW THAT.
Your only argument is that x% of men voted Trump and 100-x% of men voted Harris.
Do you understand concepts in syllogistic logic such as circular reasoning and assuming the conclusion (also called "begging the question", but that phrase is often misused these days)?
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
It isn't assuming that at all. It's the default in the absensce of any other information. There may be other information but that's a different point.
I think there's a confusion between apriori and conclusion.
It isn't assuming that at all. It's the default in the absensce of any other information. There may be other information but that's a different point.
I think there's a confusion between apriori and conclusion.
Congratulations, chez. I just said "you can't assume that a priori" and you responded by saying "no, I'm not doing that", then proceeding to explain to chezplain what "a priori" means and, then confirming that you are in fact doing exactly that.
Congratulations, chez. I just said "you can't assume that a priori" and you responded by saying "no, I'm not doing that", then proceeding to explain to chezplain what "a priori" means and, then confirming that you are in fact doing exactly that.
Well you still seem to be confusing apriori with the conclusion.
You do still seem to be confusing it. You have touched on a general objection I've raised to bayes before.
I hope this discussion has helped you understand while all the data we have on many politcal things is close to no data when it comes to drawing a general conclusion about that thing.
No, but I do remember how in "10 things to do in Denver when you're dead", all those dudes kept getting shot up the ass. Buckwheats.
I remember they cancelled that off the telly over my way after Colombine. I was kidna miffed at the time but then saw it later and didn't find it that great anyway.
This is interesting because for anything else you wouldn't answer the same. ….
But nope. nada. It's luciom making this very basic very simple very logic argument for something you would hate to be true so you have to deny basic logic works.
Lol PAST DATA is useful to estimate PRESENT DATA if you don't have PRESENTE MEASUREMENTS, what the hell of a counter is it to claim like a joke it obviously isn't?
Wrong again.
You have routinely proffered data from European countries to “prove” how something would happen in the USA. You always skew the information to meet your political goals. Like you claiming only Louisiana outlawed the sale of raw milk when 30 other states only allowed farm to table or herdshare sales or looking at unmasked vs masked Spanish elementary teachers for proof of Covid protocol effective rates.
I guess it’s true , luciom was right .
Stats works differently depending if you are a left or right wing …
That’s actually worthy of a Nobel price .
Wrong again.
You have routinely proffered data from European countries to “prove” how something would happen in the USA. You always skew the information to meet your political goals. Like you claiming only Louisiana outlawed the sale of raw milk when 30 other states only allowed farm to table or herdshare sales or looking at unmasked vs masked Spanish elementary teachers for proof of Covid protocol effective rates.
I claimed only LA outright banned it in all forms only to *correct myself* because LA legalized it while 3 other states made it illegal and you should just stop arguing in bad faith with me all the times.
The unmasked vs masked is one of the most informative real life experiments on mask efficacy so I am happy you remember that.
Only Luciom is bold enough to double down on the idea that literal school children are good models for wearing a mask all day to test their efficacy. The only two options are dumber than a brick or intellectual dishonesty at a level disqualifying of ever being taken seriously in a discussion. Well I guess both options are that.
I wonder if there is anyone else dumb enough to say that out loud.
thread is aids, too much alabama women talk itt
I claimed only LA outright banned it in all forms only to *correct myself* because LA legalized it while 3 other states made it illegal and you should just stop arguing in bad faith with me all the times.
Even now, you are failing to admit that a majority of states only allow direct sales from farmer or only to people who own part of the cows. Thus, there is no secondary market or providers like Walmart or grocery chains. So who is arguing in bad faith. It’s always projection with you.
[QUOTE=Luciom;]
The unmasked vs masked is one of the most informative real life experiments on mask efficacy so I am happy you remember that.[/QUOTE]
It was a prime example of your horrible logic, so memorable, yes. Informative, no.
I never claimed Walmart sells raw milk anywhere, but you do you.
As for gorgo, schoolchildren under teacher supervision follow rules more than adults do, that is uncontroversial.
If you think people in the office are going to use masks better than schoolchildren you have a model of the world where Iowa is Harris +3
All 50 states allow raw milk to be sold afaik, which is why it's completly absurd to have a federal law/regulation banning interstate sale of the same good, no matter what someone thinks of raw milk.
It's actually insane that the federal government can do that in the first place.
If anything under the commerce clause it could do the opposite, like forcing states to allow trade in that substance if most want to and a few don't. Not regulating it more than states want to , which has no constitutiona
Originally Posted by Gorgonian
I didn't say "states allow it" for a reason. I'm speaking specifically about if Walmart sells it. I'm glad I gave you the opportunity to go on another unrelated rant about federal government regulations though.
Walmart doesn't sell it because of federal regulations. They have a nation-wide complex logistic setup which doesn't allow them to guarantee supplies are in-state, that's not how they operate. They need to be able to move things through their warehouse without beind saddled by regulations.
If the federal rule against interstate trade of raw milk gets removed, Walmart will sell raw milk where it's profitable to do so (and allowed by local rules).
It's not an "unrelated rant", your question/suggestion could have been translated as "i wonder if they manage to remove federal regulation of raw milk".
Walmart sells everything that it can sell that it can make a profit upon, including stuff that republicans or democrats might find very offensive at times. Including stuff that is not very good for health at all.
So no i don't think there is something else other than federal (and local when applicable) regulations preventing them to sell raw milk.
Talk about bad faith argument: if it weren’t for that federal government and their fancy Commerce Clause being used unconstitutionally, Walmart would sell me raw milk!
