ronald tram is running against kane east in next erection 2020 i heard. harambe should've become pransident this time around
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'd agree with most of this apart from the manufacturing part as it isn't borne out by the stats;
Perfect case in point - 2008 election vs 2012. Obama decided to bail out the auto industry and manufacturing unions saving at least 800,000 jobs in Michigan alone.
I'm 2012, that exact demographic (manufacturing union households) completely abandoned him and voted for Romney.
They literally would have been without jobs had he not done that (something that McCain said he wouldnt) but they still decided to switch amd vote republican just 4 years later, because for blue collar, that's their regular gang, at least these days.
Well, actually, it is borne out by the stats:
quote:
Economic anxiety is about the future, not just the present. Trump beat Clinton in counties where more jobs are at risk because of technology or globalization. Specifically, counties with the most “routine” jobs — those in manufacturing, sales, clerical work and related occupations that are easier to automate or send offshore — were far more likely to vote for Trump.
quote:
...To understand what drove Trump’s victory, we can look at how Trump’s margin against Clinton in 2016 compared with Romney’s against President Obama in 2012. Sure enough, the swing toward Trump was much stronger in counties with a higher share of routine jobs; the swing toward Trump was also stronger where unemployment was higher, job growth was slower and earnings were lower.
quote:
Importantly, Trump’s appeal was strongest in places where people are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today.
It's easy to sit on the coasts and look at the unemployment numbers and say, 'Hey, those people have jobs, they should be happy!'. But those same people, with jobs, see the encroachment of foreign competition and automation and (perhaps rightfully, perhaps not) worry about their future and their children's futures. This trend is especially so when other sources of personal capital and prestige are decreasing.
djshire
I love the "respect the result" and "give Trump a chance" rhetoric coming out.
you, I don't have to respect anything.
Those of that want change are going to have to work much, much harder, but we will. I want to be part of the movement that makes Trump hate his new job. Make every fight to get anything done a battle.
I predict there will be many more protests like the ones we've seen, and there will be a great deal of race rioting, this is going to be like the 1960s.
The 2018 elections are going to be very interesting, as I have a feeling that there will be a great shift in who controls the House and the Senate.
Also, never forget that a lot of the Republican party hates Trump, and many in the party will vote against him just to spite him.
Serial Killer
quote:
Originally posted by djshire
I love the "respect the result" and "give Trump a chance" rhetoric coming out.
you, I don't have to respect anything.
leave then.. The Adults are back in charge!
otherwise you're part of the problem
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If you're going to cling to desperate pedantry, at least get it right. The article I linked stated 71%, which is a whole 5% from 66, and roughly 1 in 3 for Trump. It's actually 1 in 3.448.
Your argument about 20% probability after real results were coming in remains complete gibberish.
Are you seriously trying to say that 72% (which is actually what that article states) is closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 4? Looks like someone took took much english and not enough maths :toothless
I have no idea what you're going on about with the 20% though? That was the just a snapshot of figure 538 had changed to within 2 hours of results. 2 hours after that it was over. That's how ing badly it went for 538.
And again, rather than just focusing on the final stat from 538, you have to remember that 538 had consistently put Hilary with a 80% probability for the last 6+ months.
But the bigger point which I know you 're doing everything to avoid, is that 1 in 4 chance as I said doesn't say anything about how badly 538 got it wrong.
It's not a case of the 1 in 4 just happened to pan out and trump narrowly won; he absolutely destroyed her, which was simply not in the realm of predictions for that outside 1 in 4 chance of Trump winning.
This can't be dumbed down to whether you win or not. It's how conclusively he won, and how many states. He didn't just sneak a battle ground and managed the upset, - he got nearly all the battle grounds and even some done deal states of hilary. I'd love to see the actual probability of that result. It's got to be in the 90's percentile, if not higher.
Trump got more than Bush Jr. in either election, more than Jimmy Carter and , it's on par with John F kennedy, which to me is staggering.
But don't take it from me, just look at the hit that 538 and nate silver are taking;
The classic case of getting it wrong is Nate Silver of 538. I devoted an entire chapter to him in my book Trump the Press: Don Surber’s Take on How the Pundits Blew the 2016 Republican Race. Indeed, the book opens with a line from one of Silver’s employees, Harry Enten. On the day Trump officially entered the race, Enten wrote, “Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another Home Alone movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.”
Enten is still employed. ESPN has no plans of unloading 538, which it owns, or firing Silver. The fact that 538’s final forecast was a 72 percent chance of Hillary Clinton winning does not matter. In fact, being wrong likely generated hits on the website, which of course is all that matters to corporate media these days.
The results are in: Predictive polls were one of the losers in the 2016 presidential race.
Donald Trump’s unexpected presidential win rings like a death knell for traditional presidential polls, all of which provided assurances he would never enter the White House.
“I’ve believed in data for 30 years in politics and data died tonight,” GOP strategist Mike Murphy tweeted as the polls closed in Trump’s favor.
And finally, you'd have thought Nate Silver himself would have learned from ignoring his own doomed words from earlier in the year:
So they met up to discuss the Presidency today. LOL, I'm sure things couldn't have been more awkward between the two. Wish I could see the look on Obama's face the day Trump destroys Obamacare. And with a GOP majority in Congress, that shouldn't be too hard.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Are you seriously trying to say that 72% (which is actually what that article states) is closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 4? Looks like someone took took much english and not enough maths :toothless
Still comes out as closer to 3 than 4 with the .4 added in, so suck on it and smile for the camera. But again, mere pedantry. I said "1 in 3" because I couldn't be bothered to whip out the calculator to crunch the decimal places, and it has little bearing on my point. As I said the night before the results came in, Trump had a realistic chance, and Silver showed that. You backed the idiots who thought it was a 1 in 66 chance and along with Woony started playing the know-it-all who knew the polls were really just manufactured drama. I'll take my satisfaction at being vindicated - it's about the only positive to come out of the whole grim affair.
Serial Killer
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J it's about the only positive to come out of the whole grim affair.
and Trump is president
Vector A
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
It's not a case of the 1 in 4 just happened to pan out and trump narrowly won; he absolutely destroyed her, which was simply not in the realm of predictions for that outside 1 in 4 chance of Trump winning.
Huh?
In what world did he "destroy" her? Electoral college count was 279 to 228 (versus 332 to 206 in 2012, for example) and she won the popular vote by 200,000.
The Dems screwed up by underestimating the volatility of working class votes in rust belt states and by nominating someone who could not connect with those voters and had all the charisma and enthusiasm-generating power of wet cardboard. And this in an election in which, judging by what was going in the Republican primary and at Trump's rallies, those last qualities were clearly going to matter a lot.
Trance-M
How many had his thought? Landed at Schiphol and didn't know yet :)
JEO
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
Are you seriously trying to say that 72% (which is actually what that article states) is closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 4? Looks like someone took took much english and not enough maths :toothless
