|
"Vote Hillary Clinton 2016" is dead. Long live "Vote Hillary Clinton 2016"! (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jon_Snow |
What the Heil
 |
|
|
| Serial Killer |
running out of popcorn here
lol |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| i think my girlfriend may be a social justice warrior, i will have to oppress her and break her spirit with ancient fear tactics |
|
|
| A Peanut Sammy |
| Now where is that guy tronald dump? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
now i get relentless bull from my sister on facebook: |
have weighed in. not because i necessarily care, but coz im an opinionated arsehole.
edit: haha. comment deleted. good to know i still have it :tongue2 |
|
|
| rubez |
this guy now US president... love it :stongue:
  |
|
|
| Lews |
I don't even know where to start with you, Rann. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever-the- of pretty much anything besides audio technology, so I'm not even sure why I'm trying, but it. See if you can't try to hold down your arrogance for a moment and listen to what I'm going to say.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Drifting the argument? Projection much? I'll set you straight. I posted a stat from the dept of labor that showed a swing that didn't (and still doesn't) match the bollocks you're desperately trying to convince me of a subjective theory of "future anxiety". Again, all of the metrics relating to their industry such as consumer confidence index, auto sales, unemployment, etc in those specific districts are all in a constant incline since 2008.
So back to your all important article. It's from 538.com for s sake. the very ing place that got the election so wrong and was the basis of the origin supposition that maybe the numbers were being played with in Trump's favor but I still said I still trust 538, just it's strange that another news org would openly accuse them of fudging it). It immediately became apparent that 538 weren't fudging the numbers, they just got it so horrifically wrong, to the point their rep is in tatters, and I acknowledged, based off all the previous data from 538 how wring we were given their previous analysis. |
538 did not get it 'so wrong.' They said he had a 29% chance of winning, he won. They thought it was unlikely, but very much in the realm of possibility and probability. I realise it may be difficult for you to comprehend probabilities, as most people have issues with them, but they were not horribly, horribly wrong. They got the end forecast wrong, yes, because the polls were not accurate in several key states by a small margin. They did not get it 'horrifically wrong' and their rep is not 'in tatters.' The fact that they were closer than anyone else in calling the election is just another testament to 538's skill. What ended up happening was very much in the minds of people who understand probabilities who looked at their end numbers.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
So when suggest that people switched in that area against their own interests, your answer is to post an article to "prove" an esoteric opinion that a guy with a PHD has about anxiety fueling the switch. I say bollocks. |
YOU DO NOT KNOW THEY VOTED AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS. You know they voted against how YOU perceive their interests to be. Clearly in their minds they voted with their interests. Nobody votes against their interests on purpose. Clearly they value his ideas more than hers. You may disagree with it because of what you think is best for them, but that's probably part of why they voted for him - they're sick of bull liberal elitists on the coasts thinking they know what's best for them.
I don't know why the economic anxiety part is so difficult for you to grasp, I really don't. You yourself admitted they voted for him because of his anti-NAFTA rhetoric.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Firstly it's "analysis" (just like the deluge of 538 blog posts telling us time and time again that Clinton was going to win), secondly it's completely ing subjective - he doesn't actually link the stats of labor to the votes in any way that is tangible, he literally just gives his opinion and links to another article in the atlantic with yet more opinion rather than fact, and best of all he actually confirms what i've been saying all along: that's it's got little to do with voting your interests based on party performance (such as for the party that has helped your economic stability or job growth), and that the switch from Blue to red in this sector is emotional and tribal. |
Of course voting is emotional, you ing idiot. Say something more obvious, please.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Are you that dumb to believe that everyone isn't concerns about the future? Especially the working class. The argument that you're failing to compute, and the entire point (as you so put it) is that's not what led the switch in votes, because again, if that was really what's driving it, they wouldn't be voting against their economic interests. |
YOU DO NOT KNOW how they understand their economic interests. You think it's in their interests to vote one way, it might be that way; however, they can think it is in their interest to vote another way. They may, ultimately, be mistaken.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Nope. There was no model by 538 or anyone else that had trump doing that well.
in fact, to quote Kelly Anne Conway when responding to Clinton's aid on the night who was suggesting it'll never happen: "Thanks for the tip - we ran the four-state OH-PA-NC-FL table indeed and added MI in for good measure!"
That's why it's not as simple as "trump won". What the did was not in any model or suggestion apart from the likes of soulstar's crazy maps which everyone, myself included just giggled at becuase it was so far fetched, given the pollster pundits amazing errors. |
Again, he won the electoral college by a few percentage points in key states, in an election when turnout was down overall. He lost the popular vote. What happened was entirely within the realm of probability that was in 538's models. It was not forecast to be what would happen, but it was certainly both possibly and highly probable. As Silver said afterwards, he had been concerned that polling errors in one state might be wide-spread across other states with similar attributes, which is why his model gave Trump a much higher chance than anyone else's. That's what ing happened. And it wasn't a ridiculously-sweeping win - which is a key fact to remember when Trump and the Republicans start trying to carry out their project 'because of their mandate.'
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Again, all subjective and while I don't deny people are always worried about their jobs - as I said, I have a dream act person who works for me that is terrified right now - that's not the correctable reason as to why they jumped ship in such incredible numbers.
Again, per my earlier point, the switch started from Obama to Romney (with not good economic reason however you look at the data on jobs, confidence, unemployment, sales, growth) and it only continued in this election. |
Of course interviews with people are ing subjective! That's the god damned point of them! We want to know why people do things, we ask them for their subjective opinion. We think that they care about A, B, and C, because that's what we would care about in their shoes, but it turns out they care about D, E, and F. Their subjective opinion is all that ing matters! Statistics can help us make sense of this, but ultimately it's their subjective concerns that matter. And they are, as ing stated, highly concerned about the future of themselves, their families, their class, their way of life, etc. This is anxiety about the future. They might have a good job today, but tomorrow doesn't look so clear. 'Look at all those immigrants coming in, look at all those jobs moving overseas, look at how the people on the coasts are so concerned about micro-aggressions and think we're just idiots.' You get enough people thinking that, in key areas, and Trump is the president. How much each individual issue plays into voters is impossible to measure, but to suggest that anxiety about the future, especially economic anxiety, is not involved is ing stupid. Especially when you yourself said they were convinced by his anti-NAFTA talk.
In short, shut the up about things you don't understand. It's irritating. Stick to your audio technology and wonderful stories of how great LA is and how cool you look in your denim. |
|
|
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
| quote: | Originally posted by soulstar606
  |
haha these are actually spot on.
I have to say I really don't get all the protests. IMO I believe Trump announced his candidacy based on a dare and thought he'd never get as far as he did. Once he reached a certain level, he had a relization that maybe this could work, so het got more serious and combative. I realy don't think he thought he was going to win, even at the end, and watching that meeting with him & Obama to me, you can see in his eyes that just got real and he has the job. I'm all for change as the Gov't has been so stagnant for years so hopefully we can see some real progress :wtf: Good luck America! I'm not scared one bit, but I'm ready to adapt to the new "regime" Hopefully the rest of the populatiob can calm down and worry about making their own lives better instead of bitching. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Apparently he was completely unaware that he had to find an entirely new body of staff for the White House. He doesn't know what the job entails at all, and he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will enjoy getting balls deep in reading reports and legislation. There's going to be a huge amount of delegation, which means the people around him are going to be just as important as Trump himself.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I don't even know where to start with you, Rann. |
I'm amazed you're still bothering. If 538 is now discredited as a source due to its pre-election predictions, RANN should be committing honourable gob-e suicide for his earlier crimes against political commentary, never mind the hilarious "statistical analysis" he's befouling this thread with currently. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm amazed you're still bothering. If 538 is now discredited as a source due to its pre-election predictions, RANN should be committing honourable gob-e suicide for his earlier crimes against political commentary, never mind the hilarious "statistical analysis" he's befouling this thread with currently. |
Pure hubris on my part, thinking I can actually get some logical thoughts into his skull. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by A Peanut Sammy
Now where is that guy tronald dump? |
I was a bit tired at the time and couldn't really make any funny jokes, so I eventually forgot about the account and lost the password. I'd retrieve it but I used one of those 5-minute email services, so Tronald Dump is history :( |
|
|
| KiNeTiC ENeRgY |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Apparently he was completely unaware that he had to find an entirely new body of staff for the White House. He doesn't know what the job entails at all, and he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will enjoy getting balls deep in reading reports and legislation. There's going to be a huge amount of delegation, which means the people around him are going to be just as important as Trump himself. |
No Doubt. He's in for a ride alright. He's going to run the country like any CEO runs a big business (in America) where the underlings do the job for you while you sit back & chill and occasionally get involve in a decision. I just hope he's able to select people that won't entirely piss off every foreign country we have to deal with. |
|
|
|
|
