462 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

This is so funny. I almost posted it in the Game of Thrones thread. If these guys think they are hurting Donald Trump by doing this stuff... they are so wrong. This kind of stuff just gives him more power. Heads are exploding all over, because they can't stop him.

[Lysistrata]

I found an interesting article. This Professor of Political Science created a forecast model that correctly predicts every Presidential election result since 1912, with the exception of 1960 Kennedy/Nixon... which many believe was rigged in Illinois by the Mafia. It says Trump... if he gets the nomination, has a 97% chance against Hillary Clinton, and 99% against Bernie Sanders. The popular vote running against Hillary will be... Trump 54.7% to Clinton 45.3%. Other Republican candidates do not do as well.

 

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/

[Lysistrata]

This is yuge... Chris Christie just endorsed Donald Trump.

[onbekende]

This being the page for the 2016 forecast by the professor.

 

skimmed the text, some fancy words are used but it seems mostly his model runs on popular voting and turnout on the first couple primaries. Coupled with some "hopefull" straight up flags between the first primary and the eventual turnout of supporters in November.

 

Can't really faulty the logic, nor do I care cause I never liked statistical predictions, but lets just say a model only works until it breaks and needs to be adapted (which if I read some passage right, they are running into problems due to the deepening divide of dems <=> reps).

[Lysistrata]

This being the page for the 2016 forecast by the professor.

 

skimmed the text, some fancy words are used but it seems mostly his model runs on popular voting and turnout on the first couple primaries. Coupled with some "hopefull" straight up flags between the first primary and the eventual turnout of supporters in November.

 

Can't really faulty the logic, nor do I care cause I never liked statistical predictions, but lets just say a model only works until it breaks and needs to be adapted (which if I read some passage right, they are running into problems due to the deepening divide of dems <=> reps).

Thank you so much for posting this... I did not have it. Now I have something to look at to make sense of this insanity.

[Icewolf]

I found an interesting article. This Professor of Political Science created a forecast model that correctly predicts every Presidential election result since 1912, with the exception of 1960 Kennedy/Nixon... which many believe was rigged in Illinois by the Mafia. It says Trump... if he gets the nomination, has a 97% chance against Hillary Clinton, and 99% against Bernie Sanders. The popular vote running against Hillary will be... Trump 54.7% to Clinton 45.3%. Other Republican candidates do not do as well.

 

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/

1. Anybody who claims they can predict something like an election with 97% certainty 8 months before the event is a liar. There are far too many variables. Sorry, there is no two ways about that.

 

2. The model has never predicted anything. It is a model that explains past election results, but a model can't really be considered as being useful until it has demonstrated that it works by predicting the future. With only 25 examples, its fairly easy to find correlations in data, but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful or the model can be used to make predictions. 

[Lysistrata]

 

I found an interesting article. This Professor of Political Science created a forecast model that correctly predicts every Presidential election result since 1912, with the exception of 1960 Kennedy/Nixon... which many believe was rigged in Illinois by the Mafia. It says Trump... if he gets the nomination, has a 97% chance against Hillary Clinton, and 99% against Bernie Sanders. The popular vote running against Hillary will be... Trump 54.7% to Clinton 45.3%. Other Republican candidates do not do as well.

 

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/

1. Anybody who claims they can predict something like an election with 97% certainty 8 months before the event is a liar. There are far too many variables. Sorry, there is no two ways about that.

 

2. The model has never predicted anything. It is a model that explains past election results, but a model can't really be considered as being useful until it has demonstrated that it works by predicting the future. With only 25 examples, its fairly easy to find correlations in data, but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful or the model can be used to make predictions. 

 

Thank you Ice. I was concerned about this because he's a Professor of Political Science at Stony Brook State University in New York. Anyone who claims they can predict the outcome of an election 8 months before the event, by just using data models from the past, has got to be an obvious liar.

 

I'm so pleased to hear that you now agree that using data models from the past to predict the weather 100 years from now is an even bigger lie. I mean really... when will these Scientists from Liberalville Universities realize we are not stupid enough to believe every hypothesis they come up with?

[Icewolf]

 

 

I found an interesting article. This Professor of Political Science created a forecast model that correctly predicts every Presidential election result since 1912, with the exception of 1960 Kennedy/Nixon... which many believe was rigged in Illinois by the Mafia. It says Trump... if he gets the nomination, has a 97% chance against Hillary Clinton, and 99% against Bernie Sanders. The popular vote running against Hillary will be... Trump 54.7% to Clinton 45.3%. Other Republican candidates do not do as well.

 

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02/23/political-science-professor-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/

1. Anybody who claims they can predict something like an election with 97% certainty 8 months before the event is a liar. There are far too many variables. Sorry, there is no two ways about that.

 

2. The model has never predicted anything. It is a model that explains past election results, but a model can't really be considered as being useful until it has demonstrated that it works by predicting the future. With only 25 examples, its fairly easy to find correlations in data, but that doesn't mean that they are meaningful or the model can be used to make predictions. 

 

Thank you Ice. I was concerned about this because he's a Professor of Political Science at Stony Brook State University in New York. Anyone who claims they can predict the outcome of an election 8 months before the event, by just using data models from the past, has got to be an obvious liar.

 

I'm so pleased to hear that you now agree that using data models from the past to predict the weather 100 years from now is an even bigger lie. I mean really... when will these Scientists from Liberalville Universities realize we are not stupid enough to believe every hypothesis they come up with?

 

There are several key difference. 

 

1) Climate scientists have far far more data. 

2) Inputs into the worlds climate are easier to predict than inputs into general elections. Carbon emmissions are not as fickle as media output, and are not generally reduced substantially by scandals. Whereas a political candidate can fall flat very easily. 

3) Climate scientists already have made predictions and had results with which to check their models against. 

4) Accuracy of long term predictions is less important for a meaningful climate projection. Temperatures will rise is about the same kind of statement as "people will vote Republican." Whereas to predict an election is like predicting "temparatures will rise by EXACTLY 2.143 degrees centigrade. 

5) Climate Science uses the entire picture. This person is predicting an entire election off a handful of elections that do not represent the demographics of the nation.

 

EDIT: Turns out I was wrong and the model has been used before. Why, only as recently as 2008 it predicted a virtually tied race between Obama and McCain. Which was clearly not the case. 

[Lysistrata]

 Yes of course... Scientists using 100 years of data to predict something to happen in 8 months is a lie... but Scientists using 100 years of data to predict something to happen 100 years from now is settled science. I gotcha now. If this dude changed the names and converted this entire hypothesis to support the fiction of climate change, you would support the entire bullshit story. Why? Because you want to believe it. You just showed me that you will believe anything from these liberal university scientists that support your beliefs, but as soon as they come up with something you don't like... it's garbage science. Yeah Right.

[Icewolf]

 Yes of course... Scientists using 100 years of data to predict something to happen in 8 months is a lie... but Scientists using 100 years of data to predict something to happen 100 years from now is settled science. I gotcha now. If this dude changed the names and converted this entire hypothesis to support the fiction of climate change, you would support the entire bullshit story. Why? Because you want to believe it. You just showed me that you will believe anything from these liberal university scientists that support your beliefs, but as soon as they come up with something you don't like... it's garbage science. Yeah Right.

If someone told me that based on the climate of one US state in January they could predict the weather on a November day to within 1 degree centigrade I wouldn't believe them either. Especially if they had in the past been out by six or seven centigrade.

[Shahenshah]

The best thing about this election cycle is watching the establishment squirm.

 

I do believe some of Trump's more extreme rhetoric will be scaled back as things move in to general elections cycle.  Lys, what is your opinion on this? 

 

I think Trump's smart enough not to pull a Romney, where he went too far right and lost the general elections. 

 

Trump's a business man, he's a marketing guy, he's supplying what is being demanded by his target audience. The target audience becomes more bigger and more general as he moves to the next step of the cycle. At that point, some of his more extreme supporters, tho, may not get 100% of what they want, but would settle for say even 50% of what he promised, because otherwise, they'd get 0% + Hillary Clinton.

 

I believe if Bernie Sanders isnt the nominee, Democracts dont have a chance. Hillary is not exciting the currrent base, Bernie is, he's winning the places where he's bringing in more people to vote, once he's not there, those people will not vote or may even vote for Trump. Remember, one of the underlying bases of support of Bernie is that he too is against the current order of things, similar to Trump, so Trump would be able to attract that kind of voters. 

[Lysistrata]

Sorry for all this Shah... but you asked

 

Donald Trump is running the most brilliant campaign of our time. During the last 20 years, the USA has been dividing into two extreme fortresses, completely walled off, and at total war with each other. They are in complete control of Washington DC, and it's all held together by a sophisticated network of financial support, and media enforcement. Trump is on a personal mission to tear this all down, and the people in power that are comfortable, and profiting off this system, are scared to death of Donald Trump.

 

Trump is not a Conservative, or a Liberal... he's an American Capitalist, and wants the country to get back to leading the world from a position of strength and intelligence, instead of our current position of doggy... a service country to the world... the global bitch.

 

His current job right now is to win the Republican nomination. Where the establishment went horribly wrong... they never took him serious until it was too late. The time to take out Trump was at the very beginning, because once they allowed him on the stage, they lost. In typical Trump style, he annihilates his opposition. One by one, they have all dropped out, either by no ability to gain traction, or flamethrower. He has made sure that he has stayed in favorable light with Independents and Democrats, by calling George Bush a liar on the debate stage, and a very public dispute with Fox News. He's not in the tank with anyone involved in the sophisticated network I already talked about.

 

When he seals up the Republican nomination... the hard part is over. He then will instantly switch gears to destroying the Democrat system, which will be way too easy because it's all based on money and entitlements. Republicans are the ones that will die for their cause... not a Democrat. They will support whoever gives them the best deal. Trump has never burned a bridge on jobs, healthcare, or Social Security... and the Unions have held off their usual Democrat support. They want Trump.

 

When the Republican Convention comes, and Donald Trump is nominated... "I believe"... I stress this because I have no way of knowing for sure... I believe he will unload his largest nuclear bomb. The bomb that will unite the Republicans behind him 100%, and make enough Democrat heads to explode that the concussion will crack the planet.

 

You have to understand how Donald Trump thinks. He never thinks small, and he will go straight for the kill. Conventional thinking would make a typical Republican nominee to concentrate on the strategic electoral map, and choose a Vice President on getting more votes in a specific state... like Kasich for Ohio, or Rubio for Florida... but this is Donald Trump.

 

Every time anyone asks Donald Trump about who he would pick for VP... he always says "Someone that is absolutely qualified to be President, and he will be an expert in politics". I don't see him going to any of these people that he has spent the last six months destroying. I believe Donald Trump will go directly to New York, and rip the heart out of the Democrat electoral map. I believe he will choose his old friend of 25 years to be his running mate... and Rudy Giuliani will be on the ticket. Rudy brings instant gravitas... everybody loves Rudy. Democrats will scramble, and sink every resource they have into saving New York... but it won't work. Hillary Clinton doesn't stand a chance against this.

 

When Donald Trump is President, he will bring down the house of cards. He will cut the bloated government that all of these politicians have created to keep them in their seats. Congress will once again be forced to represent their people for a change. Because Donald Trump has no responsibility to any of these policy brokers. I don't believe Cruz or Rubio will do it. They would take the chair, cut Obama's executive orders, sign the first Obamacare repeal that hits their desk... and that's it. Business as usual. I think it's time to blow the whole thing up.

[Icewolf]

Or, given that he is the least liked candidate in the Republican field, has no practical policy ideas, has alienated vast numbers of people with his anti-women, xenophobic, anti-disabled crap,  and consistently polls he worst out of all Republican candidates, he will not only hand the Presidency to Clinton, but the Senate and House of Representatives to the Democrats as well. 

 

We'll see which vision is correct. 

[Shahenshah]

I'd be glad if US runs foreign policy on what it believes is best for it's citizens, not what the defense or foreign lobbies think. 

 

Icewolf, I believe Trump will beat Hillary. Republicans will fall in line after Trump is nominated, or they risk blowing up their party. Sanders has exposed all the chinks in Hillary's armor and he's done it politely, Trump will take the gloves off. 

[onbekende]

darn it icewolf, why you gotta give him ammunition on the climate change debate with that statistic tool >_>

 

I only keep wondering what "greatness" america has lost, and to whom or what it lost it, cause I think alot of people actually want to know that...

 

As for Trump being anti-establishment, indeed he is. He wants HIS establishment. Giving in to that is something the rest of the world would call "totalitarian"

[Lysistrata]

This is the first I have heard on an issue I knew would be coming. Apparently, about 20,000 Democrats in liberal Massachusetts have dropped the Democrat Party and registered as either Independent, or Republican, to vote for Donald Trump. I would be curious to know how much it's going the other way, but I guess it's not much if they are not writing a story about it. This is only a primary, and Donald Trump will have no problem winning the state, so I would expect much more crossover before the general in November.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party

[mariomario190]

Well, its Super Tuesday, and in the great state of Texas, we are voting! Well, not me, I'll be old enough next cycle. The community I live in is super conservative, but Dallas overall is liberal. I see myself as conservative, but I'm not supporting anybody this race. This campaign supports the fact that there is no such thing as bad publicity: Trump.

[Lysistrata]

Well, its Super Tuesday, and in the great state of Texas, we are voting! Well, not me, I'll be old enough next cycle. The community I live in is super conservative, but Dallas overall is liberal. I see myself as conservative, but I'm not supporting anybody this race. This campaign supports the fact that there is no such thing as bad publicity: Trump.

I think Teddy will win Texas today. It will probably be the only state Trump doesn't win. Pay attention this cycle my young friend, and remember this year. This is what happens when government becomes the bigger problem. I think we're gonna hit the reset button, and it's a big risk. It's their own fault... they just let things get too bad. Good or bad... wrong or right, things will be changing.

 

Super Tuesday... how the hell am I gonna post everything that will happen today?

[mariomario190]

Thanks for the advice Lys: Duly noted. I guess that's the way government works these days. 13 states isn't it? Yeesh. Fun fact: If you add 100 more delegates than those needed to win, you'd be 1337 LEET. Lol

[Lysistrata]

There are 13 today, but some people are saying 11. So I checked on it, and Colorado and Wyoming are not being counted for some reason. Off the top of my head, these states will hold their elections, but probably will not yet pledge their delegates.