|
"Vote Hillary Clinton 2016" is dead. Long live "Vote Hillary Clinton 2016"! (pg. 19)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Vivid Boy |
| Now that trump is done kissing baby's and shaking pussies, I bet he actually steps up and does a decent job. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
The smile he gives at the end, wow. ing old man. Thinks he's being so clever. |
If there's a reason I seldom take myself too seriously and avoid labelling everybody else as "idiots" is precisely because I've seen one too many avoidable mistakes by people who assumed they were better than the rest. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| Lira, make the cor great again, delete this thread! |
|
|
| Lilith |
So this one time, the Americans got drunk and elected a reality television star as their president!
(Mind you, his opponent was a large sack of crap so you can't blame them too much) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jon_Snow
Lira, make the cor great again, delete this thread! |
No can do, it's getting greater and greater... And it's already attracted a Lilith! They're rare around here! |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
What stats? I see some commentary but no stats? and is that commentary from Nate Silver? Forgive me if I take it will enough salt to drown a battleship. |
I was giving you commentary instead of the raw numbers, as you appear to have some issue understanding numbers. Feel free to click on the link I provided, however, and see them for yourself. You'd also then see that it was not written by Nate Silver, it was written by this guy: http://blog.indeed.com/author/jedkolko/ with a PhD in Economics from Harvard.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Even with the "opinion" of Nate Silver, that doesn't explain that Obama, who bailed them out, was flatly deserted just 4 years later when these jobs were then thriving and growing again. There was no "Anxiety" about car industry union jobs in 2012 in Michigan when the market was in steady upswing (and actually only yesterday, was the first layoff of 2000 jobs for GM for smaller cars that aren't selling well due to a slump in oil prices - and again, the rest of the industry is doing just fine). |
The industry is doing fine currently, but it seems fair to say that many of those workers are concerned about globalisation and automation in the future, which is the key point you don't seem to be able to grasp.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
The other statement you posted completely confirms my point; Union, blue collar households and workers will vote republican over logic. It's a tribe/gang mentality thing. Democrats bailed them out. Their economy was literally saved by Obama and Hilary promised more of the same, yet Trump at the time of the crisis openly said "let 'em go bankrupt". |
You're going to need a reason for why they've done that, since they've voted Democrat for decades before.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
The unemployment figures nationally are better than they've been for a decade, regardless of where you look, even in the most impoverished areas. |
We're not talking about unemployment, we're talking about economic anxiety.
| 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 |
Semantics about converting percentages to fractions aside, the point is that Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning. To use a Baseball metaphor, if someone has a batting average of .286, that's pretty decent and you're not going to be surprised if they get a hit.
Somehow putting those chances in the same field as HuffPost and others who gave him a 5% chance of winning is idiotic.
| 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.
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. |
This is also ing idiotic. He DID narrowly win. She's winning the popular vote overall, and he barely won the battleground states. If 1% of people who voted for him in key states had voted for her, she'd have won. 1% is WELL within the margin of error for all polls.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
And that's why them switching from Obama to Romney was so insane, and switching even further to Trump? ...his rhetoric about tearing up NAFTA managed to appeal to them... |
And this is exactly what we've been saying.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Trump has said from the outset he favors employers over unions so the fact they went for him in such a large and unexpected way is bizarre. |
No it's not, we've explained it. Anxiety about the future. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I completely agree with your brexit analysis - it's spot on, but with this specific example in the USA the important bit is 800,000 auto industry and manufacturing union jobs . |
Yes, but that isn't "the stats". It's just a number, not cross-referenced against any other hard data. You don't even analyse how those specific 800,000 people voted. It's just an anecdote. And to be honest, this is how you argue all the time. You throw in big numbers that are tangentially related to your point, but you don't actually use stats at all.
It's possible that Trump's victory wasn't realised by poor working class white people in areas of industrial decline. But you have not demonstrated that statistically in the slightest. To turn around and say "what stats?" when Lews posts an article summarising data is just jaw-dropping. His article draws far more directly and deductively from the data than your post, but you seem to think you've brought more stats because you gave a specific number, regardless of its relevance. It's as though you think "stats" literally means big numbers appearing in your post.
It's like when you were trying to convince me that marathon training is bad for the knees. You used an anecdotal example of someone you knew who treats knee problems, then you pulled out some big number about the amount of steps that someone takes running a marathon. It wasn't referenced against the average number of steps someone takes, or any kind of study showing the threshold of steps before they become damaging to the body. It wasn't a study of incidence of knee problems in marathon runners against the general population. It wasn't even an isolated number of marathon runners who go on to have knee surgery. It was literally just the number of steps someone takes running a certain distance. It's not a statistic, it's not relevant and it doesn't prove anything.
So much of your methodology is just regurgitating a huge amount of information from various articles and anecdotes and just slapping it together without any top-down logical framework. You also have a tendency to argue against people who are even agreeing with you. Here, your point isn't actually contrary to ours at all, as Lews points out. We all know the disaffected working class shoot themselves in the foot with their right wing drift. That was the first parallel with Brexit I made in the first post I made after Trump's victory. So the point you've chosen to disagree with me on isn't even disruptive to my argument.
So many of your posts - and this is why we end up repeatedly arguing with you - just come across as an attempt to show off your second-hand knowledge, which you crowbar into the discussion in ways that almost become non-sequiturs. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If there's a reason I seldom take myself too seriously and avoid labelling everybody else as "idiots" is precisely because I've seen one too many avoidable mistakes by people who assumed they were better than the rest. |
Guilty. But to be honest, they really are idiots though. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Guilty. But to be honest, they really are idiots though. |
I don't doubt it for a second.
I'm sure the world must be full of airheads, arses, berks, birdbrains, blithering idiots, blockheads, boneheads, bozos, buffoons, chumps, clods, clots, clowns, crackpots, cranks, cretins, cutups, deadheads, dimwits, dolts, doofuses, dorks, duffers, dullards, dumbbells, dunces, flibbertigibbets, fools, goofs, half-wits, imbeciles, jackasses, jerks, klutzess, knuckleheadss, morons, mouth-breathers, muppets, nincompoops, numbskulls, nutcases, nutters, pillocks, plonkers, prats, pricks, retards in the broader sense, schlubs and schmucks, simpletons, thickos, tossers, twerps, and twats... but you can never tell when you're being one of them, so passing judgement is never a good idea. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| Yes, what I meant to say is we're all idiots in our own way. I know that. |
|
|
| Lira |
| Ah, got it! I feel like I've just idioted a bit now :p |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I'm sure the world must be full of airheads, arses, berks, birdbrains, blithering idiots, blockheads, boneheads, bozos, buffoons, chumps, clods, clots, clowns, crackpots, cranks, cretins, cutups, deadheads, dimwits, dolts, doofuses, dorks, duffers, dullards, dumbbells, dunces, flibbertigibbets, fools, goofs, half-wits, imbeciles, jackasses, jerks, klutzess, knuckleheadss, morons, mouth-breathers, muppets, nincompoops, numbskulls, nutcases, nutters, pillocks, plonkers, prats, pricks, retards in the broader sense, schlubs and schmucks, simpletons, thickos, tossers, twerps, and twats... but you can never tell when you're being one of them, so passing judgement is never a good idea. |
You left out the mugs, thugs, and pugs. |
|
|
|
|
