Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate? For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals. This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

That's as clear a rationale as I've heard to date. Nice job.

It's strange that a cohort so sure of their impending victory, with elites of both parties and all the major media (news, opinion and entertainment) filling their sails seems so... well, terrified. I guess whistling past the graveyard doesn't help calm the nerves after all.

Their fear gives me confidence.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

I believe you are mixing-up two different figures. Fivethirtyeight has Hillary as about a 9 point favorite, which gives her about an 85% chance of winning at this stage of the race.

[rjwjr]

Re: Trump to win?

I can only work within my sphere of influence but I guarantee the Trumpster Fire will not win New Mexico. We only have 5 votes, but your guy is not getting them. No disrespect personally but I hope we crush your side. I don't want to win, I want to destroy your candidate.

Point #1: Trump supporters are against both "sides". We're not voting for GOP, we're not voting against Dems, we are voting to "crush" the current system. I wish more voters would recognize that. The more the mainstream media makes Trump out to be a loose cannon, the more I realize just how scared they are.

Point #2: Why must you call Trump names? Why are you focused on "destroying" a candidate? For a self-proclaimed tolerant group of people, my experience is that liberals are some of the most intolerant when it comes to alternative ideas/ideals. This is not about Trump and what the status-quo powers-that-be are trying to make him out to be in the mainstream media, this is about a group of concerned and fed-up American citizens (although we've been called every degrading & condescending name in the book) that would like to send both parties a message.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

I really do think this exercise of Silver's is little more than clickbait. He gets far more gravitas than his record deserves. He should stick to baseball.

We didn’t just get unlucky: We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates. And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things.

There’s a lot more to the story, so I’m going to proceed in five sections:

1. Our early forecasts of Trump’s nomination chances weren’t based on a statistical model, which may have been most of the problem.
2. Trump’s nomination is just one event, and that makes it hard to judge the accuracy of a probabilistic forecast.
3. The historical evidence clearly suggested that Trump was an underdog, but the sample size probably wasn’t large enough to assign him quite so low a probability of winning.
4. Trump’s nomination is potentially a point in favor of “polls-only” as opposed to “fundamentals” models.
5. There’s a danger in hindsight bias, and in overcorrecting after an unexpected event such as Trump’s nomination.

How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump

I'll wait for the poll on November 8th and keep plugging away towards the goal. FWIW, I'm meeting with the NRA rep tonight and bringing a few friends along who expressed interest. He says he'll help open a few doors at the Trump state HQ for me so I can get to work. The local HQ gave me a truckload of signs for a small donation and I'm working with some locals to get them planted this weekend. And then beer!

I forgot how much fun campaigning can be. Then again, back in the day it was a job. Now it's a pleasure.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

And that would lead to a national level acceleration down a much darker path.

We're going to see much darker things happening if Americans don't want to admit that they made the mistake in the Middle East. There's no rule that says ISIS cannot be armed with nukes. What goes around comes around.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

FWIW (which is exactly what you paid for it) either 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 of Martin Armstrong's models are calling for a Republican win.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

10 point lead? Seems to be dropping fast as the LA Times has a 1 point lead now:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

fyi, fwiw, fivethirtyeight.com now showing odds of clinton win as 87.1%
i couldn't figure how to bring over the chart of how the odds have changed over time. the two were tied at 50.1 vs 49.9 on july 30. the spread is roughly the biggest it's ever been and fairly stable over the last 8 days.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

....
You don't really want to talk about substantive issues, you want to make HRC the issue. If you want to talk about real issues...

yeah santa - lets DO talk about substantive issues - howzabout the most twistedly corrupt administration in US history - where the clinton-appointee-run dept of juicetess has allowed the biggest criminal syndicate in world history to gut the economy, debt+tax+ACA-enslaved the working class, start 3 wars (and counting) while laying waste to what was left of US foreign relations - and THEN how about this little nugget:

FBI Mutiny? Feds Reportedly Launch Clinton Foundation Corruption Probe Despite DoJ Objections

Multiple FBI investigations are reportedly underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official... The actions are "seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

• Aug 12, 2016 9:18 AM

....
I look at where we were 8 years ago and where we are today and yes, I'll take 4 more years of economic progress. ....

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

you mean '4 more years' of economic OPPRESSION (masking the outright DEPRESSION their team's policies+politix directly created)

there... 'fixed' it for ya

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Santa, the grey fuzz on my balls is all I need to understand what makes a hypocrite. And it's not that I don't want to talk about substantive issues. I just don't care to talk about them with you. You have a good day, sir.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Say? You wouldn't happen to have any federal contracts, would you? Because that would make you like, a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

I'm not the misguided revolutionary, the gray Guevara who wants to undo the system. Let me help you with your logic Woody. It's not hypocritical to take tax breaks from the Feds, it's hypocritical to take money from a system you want to bring down.

You don't really want to talk about substantive issues, you want to make HRC the issue. If you want to talk about real issues, let's discuss the direction of the Supreme Court under Trump, who will choose someone in the mold of Justice Scalia or HRC who will most likely continue the trend started by President Obama. You know where I stand on this issue.

Please let me know why a right wing Supreme Court will be better for the average person in the US. Or you can simply say it's part of your revolutionary plan to break the current system.

I look at where we were 8 years ago and where we are today and yes, I'll take 4 more years of economic progress. Is it perfect? Nope, far from it but I'd like to not head of in the wrong direction and elect a man who 'love[s] the poorly educated'.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

a dem senatorial majority will, i agree, just harden the divide. [so will a republican one] unless one side has 60 votes, the only way to get a supreme court appointment will be "the nuclear option" - changing the cloture rule to a simple majority. this will not soothe the opposition.

woody, please dial back the ad hominem. i understand you are riled up about these issues, but i don't think name calling does you or anyone else any good. if you want a discussion, great. if you want an argument i'd suggest you take it to the next trump rally nearest you - i'm sure there will be protesters who will be happy to cooperate in an exchange of fruitless anger.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Woody, you sound like a revolutionary here but didn't you work for the government during your career? Don't they send you a retirement check every month? I might be totally wrong and I'll apologize if I misunderstood your previous posts but I thought you were a federal government employee who now has all the benefits accorded to those lucky enough to earn the umbrella of Federal largess.

Good for you, Santa!

I'm curious? I've been reading your posts for several years now and we've been back and forth, here and there enough. Some of the more serious folks here, they seem to hold quite a high opinion of you. It's clear there was a time you actually contributed something useful to the conversation.

So when did you become a limp dick little punk? I know you don't have the chops to argue with me on the facts. Everybody does. And it must be frustrating to have a half-educated old man run circles around you every time you open your little pie hole. Me, I don't take it personally. I completely understand why you go for the ad hominem first and always with me.

But maybe try to do it with a little more panache. If you can't inform us, at least entertain us. Otherwise you just look small and petty. You don't want to be small and petty, do you? Go big, little man!

Speaking of federal largess.

Federal government spending is a major driver of the New Mexico economy. In 2005 the federal government spent $2.03 on New Mexico for every dollar of tax revenue collected from the state. This rate of return is higher than any other state in the Union.[17] The federal government is also a major employer in New Mexico providing more than a quarter of the state's jobs.

Economy of New Mexico

I know it's hard for you to understand why I'd support Trump. But you don't need to explain anything to me about your support for the She Wolf of Goldman Sachs. I always encourage folks to vote for their self-interest. As an old dude, I just have a bigger concept of it than you is all.

SANTA FE – A New Mexico family can take in roughly $30,435 annually from various state and federal anti-poverty programs, according to a study conducted by a libertarian think tank. In addition, the Cato Institute study ranked New Mexico 18th in the nation in terms of the total dollar value of available welfare benefits, though the study’s authors acknowledged many recipients do not receive all eligible benefits.

Study: N.M. families can get up $30,435 annually in welfare

So you have that going for you. Which is nice, as Carl Spackler might say.

Say? You wouldn't happen to have any federal contracts, would you? Because that would make you like, a hypocrite, wouldn't it?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

I think Clinton will win and the Senate will be 50+ Dems. If I'm correct we can begin to move back two decades of regressive, racist decisions. If we get this win and then keep pushing we can move forward. This, like many centuries before will not be easy but I'm confident in the person I've chosen to lead.

I think a Hillary win combined with a Democrat majority Senate/Congress would further solidify the national divide set in concrete.

And that would lead to a national level acceleration down a much darker path.

The two decades of regressive, racist decisions is a bit odd.

Regressive. Certainly in a few respects.

Racist? Compared to what exactly?

-----

Personally, I despise Trump.

He epitomises everything I despise about the artificiality of circus side show business hype overshadowing the real hard work, sweat, and tears of real entrepreneurial activity that makes the world we live in possible.

I want to see him decapitate Hillary's Mrs Iselin Manchurian Candidate level malignant ambitions.

I want to see both the GOP completely implode and the DNC irreparably disrupted.

------

On the other hand, I want to see the DNC forced to take ownership of this disaster. 12-16 years in executive leadership with no real respect for law or political compromise they will be held largely responsible for everything that happens.

You can't be both "girl power" and victim of GOP omnipotence concurrently.

As the US shows early signs of going "1st world problems" version of Brazil(best case) and/or Venezuela(worst case), the DNC will be held responsible.

But I suspect that a DNC 4-8 years could lead to far darker unintended consequences if the corruption is not seriously reigned back.

While the country is divided between the two tribes trickling down too little of the "Vig" to the little people, everyone knows the Empress has no clothes....and almost everyone is talking about it rather than keeping their mouths shut.

-----

Between the two bad choices, I say burn it all to the ground in a Dali-esque pyre.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

any predictions on when we will see the confirmation of any new supreme court justice, either irrespective of or dependent on who is the next president? the court is now at 8, it's not hard to picture it at 7 or 6.

I think Clinton will win and the Senate will be 50+ Dems. If I'm correct we can begin to move back two decades of regressive, racist decisions. If we get this win and then keep pushing we can move forward. This, like many centuries before will not be easy but I'm confident in the person I've chosen to lead.