Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by dutchfire, Jul 14, 2016.
QED. This comment confirms my intuitions precisely.
I think that the vast majority of Americans are very unenthusiastic about this election. Enthusiastic people put out yard signs. Most just want it to be over.
Meaning what? It's your argument. Why do you need intuition?
Early voting demographically is going well for HRC. Women are around 56% of the electorate so far and women favor Clinton over Trump. Latino voters have spiked, which should cancel out the downturn of black voters in this election.
That's not necessarily in Clinton's favor. Polling shows a split among the Latino community that favors Clinton, but shows Trump does have a not-insignificant amount of support among the Latino community. The highest polling for Trump's support among the Latino community have him at 32%, while the lowest poll has him at 19%. Compare that to Trump being almost universally rejected by black voters, and I'd call that somewhat of a success for Trump that he has managed to get somewhere between 19 and 32 percent support from Latino voters. Especially since Latinos have been the target of some of his most vicious statements.
You couldn't have more neatly fallen into Sommerswerd's description of modern Republicans than if you'd tried.
Think of it as one of those dreadful pearls/swine things, and: "I know U.R., but what... M.I.?"
Or "he who smelt it, dealt it"?
Your comment reminded me of Trump and Donald Jr encouraging people to see Michael's Moore's "Trumpland" based on this clip:
NSFW (seriously... there's bad words)
I imagine that you might watch this and say "Michael Moore makes the best case to vote for Trump" or something along those lines... If so... I say again, QED.
Iirc Moore (at least in the near past) was saying that due to Hillary not causing enthusiasm in dem voters (Moore was for Bernie anyway) it is likely Trump would win. I saw a very recent video where (i think) he was trying to get more people to vote for Hillary, so that seems to have changed.
Moore also was noting how those being against the system are obviously more likely to vote Trump.
Hm, btw, is there any other context to this which makes CM's comments a sort of "here is how the 'other' side sees this"? (honest question, cause it would seem more likely?)
Again, Trump is not good at all - not good by FAR. (by which i mean he is dreadfully bad). Yet i think the other of the two bad candidates may be having momentum currently. Which doesn't mean things will be anything good the next day, but WTH?
Edit, yes, thought it would be this type of thing:
/meh, weak trolling I do agree with CM that a good candidate would exactly focus virtually all the time on those serious issues (endless US wars and so on), instead of Trump who even wants to upgrade the US military, i assume so as to be ready to battle aliens.
Except that, it applies to everyone, not just Republicans. Democrats hate just as vehemently as Republicans. Hillary Clinton is a prime example.
Not necessarily. In this case, it would be Sommerswerd who is pretty egalitarian. Others posting, not so much.
I don't think QED means what you think it means. Besides, it's Michael Moore. He is a poster child for the haters-gonna-hate theme.
On second thought, that would be Kieth Olberman, but still.
I would ask what you meant by throwing Clinton's name in here, but after months and months of your incessant personal attacks on her, at this point, I barely even care and, quite frankly, I think it cheapens whatever else you may be saying at the time.
Conservatives tend to vote more regularly. Not sure if that's true for those who identify as trump supporters, but I'd dare bet they're more likely to avoid apathy than Hillary supporters. I hope you're driving friends to the booths.
That takes me back to 6th grade.
I can't figure out if I want to watch the returns come in or just wait for Wednesday's morning paper.
What if Sam Wang is right and Silver is wrong
One million economic refugees for Puerto Rico have settled in Florida, and most of them have registered as Democrats.
I'm not sure that's possible. It's impossible to conclude on the basis of the results which prediction was 'correct' - theoretically, if Trump wins we can't say that Wang was wrong. In such a case, he's just assigned a very low probability that happened to eventuate. If you roll a die and say "it probably won't be a 6", you're not wrong if it ends up being a 6.
So if Clinton wins, although I would expect Silver to cop flack for having her at lower odds, it won't be possible to say that he was wrong. It might be possible to say the polls upon which he was basing his model were generally wrong if Trump wins or if Clinton wins by a significant margin, but he's just assigning probabilities to the chance that the polls are incorrect.
The problem for him at the moment is likely to be that he's going to have to come out with an article which 'calls' every state. At the moment, Nevada, Florida & North Carolina all show Trump marginally ahead, and Silver will have to say "my model shows Trump as more likely to win". Any slight deviation in the polls and he'll have blown three states. No-one will care that the three states going to Clinton doesn't actually make Silver's prediction 'wrong'.
On the other hand, I do actually think we can say that Wang's prediction is wrong, regardless of the result. It does not strike me as epistemologically plausible to assign from the current polls anything higher than, say, an 80% probability. If I randomly say that there's a 100% probability that Trump will win, and he subsequently does, I'm not some wise sage - I'm wrong regardless of the result, because that probability is simply not possible with the current information we have.
According to Nate Silver: Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida have all moved into the Trump column.
He is currently setting the odds as 2-1 for Hillary.
His prediction for the Senate is down to a 53% chance for Democratic control.
I'm pretty sure Nevada should be leaning Clinton. The others i'm not so sure.
Separate names with a comma.