|
"Vote Hillary Clinton 2016" is dead. Long live "Vote Hillary Clinton 2016"! (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Swamper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
Now that trump is done kissing baby's and shaking pussies, I bet he actually steps up and does a decent job. |
I think once he realizes how much work is involved he is going to regret having won. As for Melania, she looks miserable. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Ah, got it! I feel like I've just idioted a bit now :p |
I mean, not everyone agrees. When I say they, I mean the humans. I'm half joking, but I think we all experience moments of stupidity. In this case it was en masse. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| Puts on English spectacle, Lira you are the most eirenic bell end I have ever met. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
If he has a 29% chance of winning, that's 29 times in 100 he is expected to win. If we want to reduce that to a "1 in [x]" statement we have to divide both sides by 29.
100/29 = 3.448
1 in 3.448 is closer to 1 in 3 than to 1 in 4. As is (barely) the 3.4965 we get if we do the same with 28.6%.
I must admit that expressed in percentages, 29% is closer to 25% than it is to 33.333%. I'm now hoping someone who understands maths better than my A Level knowledge can explain what the actual answer is here. |
That's it really. 71.4% or it's inverse is 28.6% is closer to 25% than 33.33%.
I think the difference is that with percentages in relation to ratios, you're not rounding to the nearest integer (i.e. a step of 3 to 4) - it's the difference in value between between 66.66 and 75 which is 8.34. That's the "decimal" difference between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4.
So any difference less than half (whichever way) is the closer.
in other words, the exact mid point is 70.83%. Anything lower is closer to 1 in 3 and anything higher is 1 in 4.
Pedantic. Yes, but I'm mathematically right. |
|
|
| Woony |
Jeez. This thread sure has "developed" :p
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Not to get into the nuts and bolts of the theory itself, but your post sounds very much like a critical theorist's idea of "systemic". These kind of readings sound very convincing and hermetic when you study them, but I'm increasingly dubious as to their usefulness in describing the real world. |
I wouldn't really disagree with most of the factors you've listed, but how are they actively disproving what I wrote? Bourgeoise academia (that always sounds really pretentious in english, in german we say "bürgerlich", which is also the common word for inhibitant, civic person etc.) does this all the time, they find a reasonable "practical" explanation seemingly supported by data and then argue that any kind of overarching or deeper theory is automatically disproven. A good example is the classic boom/bust cycle, traditional economists aren't stupid, they see that there obviously is a problem to be analyzed and they deliver an explanation that's convincing in a vacuum but if you try to make any deeper connection to the foundation of capitalism they'll start yelling at you because once you start reaching beyond that contained explanation you're suggesting things that they don't like.
But I think there can be different "levels" of theory that work in their own space for different reasons. And what I wouldn't even call what I wrote before complete theories, it's just observations on a more meta-level. And of course, theorists will be the first to admit that the way things happen is totally out of anyone's control.
And another point, your post makes the point that theory and reality/practical explanations are easily differentiated but going back the second point of my original post, I don't think that's even necessarily easily done anymore. I mean just look at globalism, beyond the vague idea of things becoming more connecte it's such an opaque concept trying to analyze an impossibly large set of data that often breaks traditional cause/effect and causation/correlation structures to the point where it's nowhere and everywhere. I wouldn't necessarily call that any more "real "than some of the more esoteric theories of modern social and economic systems. I think in an age were even the supposedly "practical" explanations are impossibly complex and opaque, critical and social theory become even more attractive, not as a way to see the absolute truth but try and make sense, to structure the jungle in front of us. |
|
|
| Zharen |
A nice little article from the New York Post. I'd say it's pretty much spot on with Obama and his so called legacy.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/obamas...mocratic-party/
| quote: | In the course of about six hours, what was supposed to be a Republican existential crisis turned into a Republican wave.
What was supposed to be a victory of the coalition of the ascendant became a dispiriting rout of the coalition that didn’t show up.
What was supposed to be the crowning political achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency set the predicate for the unraveling of his legacy.
Since before he was elected president, Obama put down as a marker the transformational example of Ronald Reagan. That entailed moving the political center of gravity of the country in his direction; winning re-election; and cementing his standing by securing a de facto third term for a Democratic successor.
As of 7 p.m. Tuesday, the Reagan standard looked to be in Obama’s grasp. His approval rating stood above 50 percent. He campaigned vigorously, and apparently effectively, in front of adoring crowds. The last round of public polling and the exit polls on Election Day showed Hillary Clinton getting over the top, and her victory seemed likely to precipitate an ugly, self-destructive Republican civil war.
By the wee hours of Wednesday, this scenario turned to ashes and Obama could only survey the wreckage of the Democratic Party, and by extension, his highest ambition.
Obama is a once-in-a-generation political athlete who will always be remembered as the nation’s first African-American president. But a goodly portion of what he has labored for over two terms could now wash out with the political tide.
His party has been devastated beneath him. It began in 2010, when Republicans took the House by winning 63 seats, the biggest pickup since 1948, and six seats in the Senate. In 2014, Republicans gained another 13 House seats and took control of the Senate. Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats in this period.
This was chalked up to the midterm effect, the product of a smaller, more Republican-leaning electorate in nonpresidential years. Well, on Tuesday night, the GOP won Senate races in blue states. It minimized losses in the House. It picked up more governorships, including in Vermont, and made striking gains in state legislatures from Kentucky to Connecticut.
All in a presidential year. The GOP controls the presidency, the US Senate and House, and roughly two-thirds of the country’s governorships and state legislatures. The Democrats are now, judging by the scorecard of major offices, the nation’s minority party.
What happened? From the beginning, Obama pushed the left-most plausible agenda without regard to political consequences. His signature initiative, ObamaCare, was forced through Congress despite its manifest unpopularity and with the crucial assistance of obvious falsehoods (i.e., that it would reduce premiums and people could keep their doctors).
When Obama’s initial legislative overreach cost him his congressional majorities, he proceeded with executive overreach, especially on environmental regulation and immigration. His attitude was that everyone had to get with his program and that if they didn’t, they were either stupid or spiteful. He believed less in the usual political arts of compromise and personal relationships than in the irresistible power of his own words.
Having made no real effort at party-building and after a series of disastrous midterms where his campaigning basically saved no one, he had no protégé to turn to in order to try to win his third term. The political bench was empty. He had to reach back to his vanquished rival, Hillary Clinton, whose inadequacies he had exposed in the 2008 primaries and who was almost comically ill-suited to energizing the Obama coalition.
Those voters were considered Obama’s enduring political contribution — an ever-growing bloc of minorities, millennials and the college-educated who would swamp older white voters and constitute an ideological ratchet, turning the country’s politics steadily to the left.
In its first big post-Obama test, the coalition failed. Now many of the president’s substantive achievements are under threat from a unified Republican government, especially ObamaCare, which is in a semi-crisis, and his vast number of unilateral actions. President Trump will pick up his own pen and phone.
President Obama’s party is lurching toward its own bloodletting after losing to perhaps the least likely presidential candidate in all of American history.
We now know that President Obama’s larger project has come a cropper. He is no Ronald Reagan, not even close.
|
|
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
I wouldn't really disagree with most of the factors you've listed, but how are they actively disproving what I wrote? Bourgeoise academia (that always sounds really pretentious in english, in german we say "bürgerlich", which is also the common word for inhibitant, civic person etc.) does this all the time, they find a reasonable "practical" explanation seemingly supported by data and then argue that any kind of overarching or deeper theory is automatically disproven. |
I wasn't trying to disprove it, I just don't think it's actually very useful. You link the "hypernormalisation" theory back to Baudrillard's writing from 30 years ago, by which I presume you mean hyper-reality and his ideas about simulacra, etc. Those are pretty interesting ideas, and I certainly have a lot more intellectual time for them than some of the tedious post-structuralist of that era, but they don't really draw any useful conclusions. Like a lot of capital T "Theory", you can apply them to just about any aspect of modern Western culture. It will sound clever and deep and you can spin out a whole academic career out of variations on the theme, but once you've heard it a few times it ceases to be stimulating analysis.
| quote: | | And another point, your post makes the point that theory and reality/practical explanations are easily differentiated but going back the second point of my original post, I don't think that's even necessarily easily done anymore. |
Again, I think you've interpreted my post as more of an attempted debunkment than it actually was. Of course it's difficult to separate practical reality from the theory, especially when the theory gets its mileage out of endlessly problematising the idea of clean-cut "reality". But the theory is just the academic wrapping paper, really, whether it's valid or not.
I mean, to give an obvious example, that HyperNormalisation documentary claims that this state began in 1975 and uses cultural/historical examples right through that period to the present. So while it might initially seem to chime with Trump/Brexit's "post-truth" tactics, it's not actually saying anything incisive about why this is coming to a head now, apart from perhaps "more Internet". Which again, you can analyse quite effectively without getting into the esoteric theory. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
Bourgeoise academia (that always sounds really pretentious in english, in german we say "bürgerlich", which is also the common word for inhibitant, civic person etc. |
German is such a beautiful language when it comes to sorting people. A few days ago I learnt that "Wutbürger" means "Person angry as hell who's bound to vote for the maddest person in an election".
Fascinating! |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| The Germans have always been great at sorting and then exterminating. Theyre also really good with lists apparently |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
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.
|
I couldn't give a if that guy was was your sugar daddy. You said the stats "do bear it out" and then proceeded to post commentary from some professor I couldn't be bothered to read.
Any why? Because you're jack's little proxy. I have no problem having a discussion with jack becuase he has original thoughts, but every single time one of these discussion come up, you start chiming in only once Jack has made his points. You're his little lap dog and honestly, posting commentary instead of stats, [/QUOTE]whilst trying to state "the stats do bear them out" is just farting in the wind becuase you think jack might like the smell.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews 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.
You're going to need a reason for why they've done that, since they've voted Democrat for decades before.
We're not talking about unemployment, we're talking about economic anxiety.
|
But you have no qualitative metrics at all to back it up. You just keep saying "future anxiety" and I'm mean to go "oh ok that that proves it the!", but whether we look at the consumer confidence index, the unemployment rate in the union sector in the area, auto and manufacturing sales, they all were on a steady incline both before and after, so again, that stat relating to 800k union workers switching to the other side, isn't about economic uncertainty, becuase there wasn't ing any, and I can back it up.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
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.
|
The semantics is a just bit of fun between jack and I, but to use your metaphor, it's not just making a hit, it's like a first time starter making a home run and hitting the liberty bell.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Somehow putting those chances in the same field as HuffPost and others who gave him a 5% chance of winning is idiotic.
|
That was just nonsense though as he never fell that low in any poll.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
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.
|
But the fatc is, and the whole ing basis for this discussion was that no one saw him walking away with ALL the battleground states, and some of her/tradionally blue states...CASE IN POINT: Michigan, that has not just been saved, but has done better than expected since 2008 under a Dem administration. She basically promised 4 more years of the same, Trump promised to tear up union agreements and in his own words would have let these people go bankrupt. Trying to say there's "anxiety" and that's why they jumped ship is absolute hokum as they've experienced nothing but growth stability and had growth projected under a Dem government.
So what I've been saying all along is that this one example (and that's all it is) is perfectly indicative of people voting against their interests. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
The Germans have always been great at sorting and then exterminating. Theyre also really good with lists apparently |
A+, |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
The Germans have always been great at sorting and then exterminating. Theyre also really good with lists apparently |
:stongue:
They're also good with numbers, more specifically tattooing them on people before marching them off to camp. |
|
|
|
|
