Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

Nov 4 place your bets

  • Trump will win, 100%

    Votes: 42 16.9%

  • Hilary will win, 100%

    Votes: 82 32.9%

  • Trump will win, but I'm worried Hil might triumph

    Votes: 9 3.6%

  • Hilary will win, but I'm scared the chances.

    Votes: 116 46.6%
  • Total voters
    249
PartSkeptic said:
What cannot be avoided is the elephant in the room. A lot of people very unhappy with the establishment.
Click to expand...

Yes.
Very unhappy.
And even now parts of the establishment still doesn't understand the unhappiness.


Remember Hitler. It took a while for him to work his way to the top. The Republican party will not be the same going forward.
Click to expand...

Trump's reach is getting shorter and shorter. He certainly won't work his way to the top. I think he will have to struggle to get where he was in 2014. No, he is too-easily baited to be an effective force for for the growing numbers of anti-establishmentarians (or is it disestablishmentarians?). They will have to find a new face to champion their cause.

I was thinking about all the differences betweenTrump and Hitler. But there is one common trait: both of them had access to some of the most highly-qualified experts available, and then ignored them again and again and again.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Yes.
[many people are] Very unhappy.
And even now parts of the establishment still doesn't understand the unhappiness.
...
Click to expand...

There are a few possibilities here:
1. The notion that there are many more unhappy people than normal is just a bogus idea that various groups have promoted for their own purposes. It is the nature of capitalism that at each particular time some groups are doing better and some groups are doing worse. It is possible for politicians to exploit this fact and use anecdotal evidence based on isolated pockets of unhappiness to falsely extrapolate the evidence to the general population. Politicians can also exploit the unhappy groups by promising to make things better in ways that can't happen or will make things worse. Trump's promises to the coal miners strikes me as exactly this kind of thing but both parties use this technique a lot.

2. There really are a lot more people unhappy than normal, but the cause is that people have been inundated with propaganda that suggests things are in terrible shape and reasonably enough some people believe it and are pretty sure that Obama is some sort of devil and they see Clinton as potentially worse than the Obama devil because they have become convinced that things are terrible in general despite overwhelming evidence that things are actually pretty good for most people.

3. There are economic factors that are causing a lot of overall unhappiness in the general population. Two of these factors might be the paradigm change in the economy where a lot of things are made overseas thereby eliminating a lot of factory jobs* and the general screwing of the millennials by my generation (baby boomers) which has left a lot of millennials deep in debt with college loans and medical debt while they pay high taxes because they have failed to get the tax breaks from home ownership and marriage that benefited a lot of baby boomers. And now we baby boomers are moving into retirement with cushy benefits and some weird sense of entitlement where we believe medical care should be free for ourselves but the young people should pay for their own medical care.

4. The gradual reduction in white privilege (white male privilege in particular) has left a lot of whites longing for a time when stuff might have been bad but in the past they could always comfort themselves with the idea that they were white and that put them a step ahead of everybody that wasn't. A lot of millennials probably don't realize how profound the changes are with regard to this kind of thing. I became an engineer when almost the only engineers in the US were white and male. Today non-whites and women participate in almost all aspects of the economy including all the white-collar jobs which 50 years ago were completely dominated by white males.

*Some good news with regard to manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs have increased for the first time in many years in the US.
 
Anyone remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) and his "Master Persuader Hypothesis" for why Trump would win the election? Well, he's now rationalizing why a Trump loss doesn't disprove his hypothesis:

The Era of Women

If the latest groping/kissing allegations against Trump hold up – and I assume they will, based on quantity if not credibility – it won’t matter what Wikileaks says about Clinton. She will win easily.

If Clinton wins, you’ll wonder if this invalidates the Master Persuader Hypothesis. The short answer is no, because the concept doesn’t account for unknowns of this magnitude. If a meteor had struck Trump a day before election day, it wouldn’t say much about his skill as a persuader. The Master Persuasion Hypothesis worked splendidly until the double-whammy of the Access Hollywood tape and the “octopus” meteor.

Trump could still win, but only if some new and unexpected meteor strikes Clinton.
Click to expand...

Just a meteor strike nobody could have possibly predicted, right? ;)

But note, he no longer expects Trump to win.
 
Puppycow said:
Anyone remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) and his "Master Persuader Hypothesis" for why Trump would win the election? Well, he's now rationalizing why a Trump loss doesn't disprove his hypothesis:

The Era of Women



Just a meteor strike nobody could have possibly predicted, right? ;)

But note, he no longer expects Trump to win.
Click to expand...

Was he afraid that people had forgotten that he was an idiot and a misogynist? If the Orange Menace was such a master persuader, why can't he talk his way out of this? There is special vileness to his bitterness and moronic special pleading in being proven demonstrably wrong.
 
Puppycow said:
(snip)
Just a meteor strike nobody could have possibly predicted, right? ;)

But note, he no longer expects Trump to win.
Click to expand...

In the early days I thought Trump would win because of his skills.

Now I think he will win only because the cards predicted it. It may take the equivalent of a meteor strike, but I will wait for it.

I still think he will be the better President by far.
 
PartSkeptic said:
In the early days I thought Trump would win because of his skills.

Now I think he will win only because the cards predicted it. It may take the equivalent of a meteor strike, but I will wait for it.

I still think he will be the better President by far.
Click to expand...

Cards? As in Tarot cards? Really? On a Skeptics forum? :D
 
Trump walks into a dressing room? And people get upset? They do not know the world of modelling, do they? And in the 1970's I went to the men's showers in Sweden and three mothers were standing right there waiting for their kids with naked men and boys walking by.

The claims of the other women. They wish. Trump echoed my thought - look at her. It does not work that way that a man just gropes a woman. There are a few very quick subtle signals that a move will not be rejected before one can do it. Whether he did or not is debatable and not yet proven.

All these holier than thou politicians. Remember Strauss-Kahn. Now there was a pervert, cavorting with whores. Anthony Weiner - another pervert.

The French have a long tradition of mistresses, and the US makes nothing of it.

The SA President Zuma rapes his best friend's HIV daughter, and has a shower to wash away the HIV. The most powerful man in Africa. Another moral degenerate. Protected by his cronies he put in power.

Bill Clinton - the record speaks for itself.

Trump is a horny alpha-male, who has gotten caught on tape with some crude braggadocio remarks.

The Democrats forget Clinton policies. The Trump supporters want Trump policies.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think Sanders shows that the dissatisfaction need not lead to a demagogue. Unless you think he was one, too?
Click to expand...

I wasn't taking a huge amount of notice, but I did think the Bernie Bros weren't all that far from Brownshirts, and their actions immediately after his defeat looked a bit that way as well.

I'm open to other explanations.
 
Ladewig said:
....... the growing numbers of anti-establishmentarians (or is it disestablishmentarians?)........
Click to expand...

Anti-establishment is not the same as disestablishment. Disestablishmentarianism is normally taken to mean breaking the bonds between a state and the established church. For instance, between the Church of England and the UK. People who oppose such a change have given rise to the longest word in the English language: antidisestablishmentarianism.
 
PartSkeptic said:
See post #147.
Click to expand...

Here is that post:

PartSkeptic said:
Predictions as to whether Trump will be President.

Here is what the Tarot cards say: (for fun)

1. Will Trump win the nomination?
Trump has a strong interest in success, and he will win it in a business-like manner. There will be renewed ideas and possible social unrest with labor support for him.

2. Will Trump win the Presidential election?
Trump will pander to the masses, and to the mainstream religions. He will win an emotional victory. But he will face opposition from forces that will not want to recognize him. However, he will bull his way through with determination and achieve cooperation and balance.

3. Repeat. Will he win the election?
It is going to be a tough nasty fight. But yes. There will be fresh opportunities that will open up.

4. Repeat. Will he be sworn in as President?
Trump is going to cause disruption to the old ways. The establishment will be defeated. But yes he will be sworn in.

5. Will Trump stay the full first term?
Yes. He will do the right things. The outcome for the country will be very good.

Specific enough for you skeptics?

My personal comment: One cannot make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.
Click to expand...
 
When you lose the bet, PS, and your prediction is proven wildly wrong, will you:

A- assume you read the cards wrong

or

B- recognise that there is no way that a pack of cards can predict the future?
 
Puppycow said:
Anyone remember Scott Adams (Dilbert cartoonist) and his "Master Persuader Hypothesis" for why Trump would win the election? Well, he's now rationalizing why a Trump loss doesn't disprove his hypothesis:

The Era of Women



Just a meteor strike nobody could have possibly predicted, right? ;)

But note, he no longer expects Trump to win.
Click to expand...

The odds with regard to this election have always been a bit misleading. Poll aggregators and predictors base their analysis on the idea that differences between their predictions and election day will vary in a range that they can estimate based on past experience.

Predicting this election has always been about how the probability of unpredictable events (meteor strikes as per Scott Adams) that could skew the results far more than the routine movements of voters between two candidates as in a normal election. As someone who thinks that Trump is a disgusting race baiting grifter wildly unsuited to be president I was very afraid that one of those unpredictable events would do Clinton in. Some of Clinton's scandals involve facts that don't fall her way. Looking at it from the outside I didn't feel like there was enough public information available to rule out a meteor strike on Clinton.

Looking at it from the other side, there was a pile of information about what a completely disgusting individual Trump was publicly available. There was so much negative information available about Trump that it wasn't clear that adding more negative information to the pile would make a difference to potential Trump voters. Telling lies to people that they want to hear is a very powerful technique and it seemed like Trump was such a successful liar that maybe he was right, his supporters were in it to the end with him. regardless of what he has done.

As things have turned out so far the unpredictable events have swung far more against Trump than Clinton. Was that predictable? I don't know. If I'd hazarded a guess a month or so, I would have expected things to go on without a major event that would significantly affect the election, but if one did occur my bet would have been that it was more likely to happen to Trump. I thought he was a life long sleazebag and the chances for a surprise event providing simple sound bite type information about what a completely detestable human being Trump is seemed to be higher.
 
davefoc said:
The odds with regard to this election have always been a bit misleading. Poll aggregators and predictors base their analysis on the idea that differences between their predictions and election day will vary in a range that they can estimate based on past experience.

Predicting this election has always been about how the probability of unpredictable events (meteor strikes as per Scott Adams) that could skew the results far more than the routine movements of voters between two candidates as in a normal election. As someone who thinks that Trump is a disgusting race baiting grifter wildly unsuited to be president I was very afraid that one of those unpredictable events would do Clinton in. Some of Clinton's scandals involve facts that don't fall her way. Looking at it from the outside I didn't feel like there was enough public information available to rule out a meteor strike on Clinton.

Looking at it from the other side, there was a pile of information about what a completely disgusting individual Trump was publicly available. There was so much negative information available about Trump that it wasn't clear that adding more negative information to the pile would make a difference to potential Trump voters. Telling lies to people that they want to hear is a very powerful technique and it seemed like Trump was such a successful liar that maybe he was right, his supporters were in it to the end with him. regardless of what he has done.

As things have turned out so far the unpredictable events have swung far more against Trump than Clinton. Was that predictable? I don't know. If I'd hazarded a guess a month or so, I would have expected things to go on without a major event that would significantly affect the election, but if one did occur my bet would have been that it was more likely to happen to Trump. I thought he was a life long sleazebag and the chances for a surprise event providing simple sound bite type information about what a completely detestable human being Trump is seemed to be higher.
Click to expand...

Rumors are that there are even worse stories about Donald. I totally believe them.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Trump walks into a dressing room? And people get upset? They do not know the world of modelling, do they? And in the 1970's I went to the men's showers in Sweden and three mothers were standing right there waiting for their kids with naked men and boys walking by.

The claims of the other women. They wish. Trump echoed my thought - look at her. It does not work that way that a man just gropes a woman. There are a few very quick subtle signals that a move will not be rejected before one can do it. Whether he did or not is debatable and not yet proven.

All these holier than thou politicians. Remember Strauss-Kahn. Now there was a pervert, cavorting with whores. Anthony Weiner - another pervert.

The French have a long tradition of mistresses, and the US makes nothing of it.

The SA President Zuma rapes his best friend's HIV daughter, and has a shower to wash away the HIV. The most powerful man in Africa. Another moral degenerate. Protected by his cronies he put in power.

Bill Clinton - the record speaks for itself.

Trump is a horny alpha-male, who has gotten caught on tape with some crude braggadocio remarks.

The Democrats forget Clinton policies. The Trump supporters want Trump policies.
Click to expand...

Perhaps more than almost anyone in this entire thread you understand how different cultures can be. Talking about attitudes in Sweden is meaningless in this particular case. If you want to talk about how America should be like that or could be like that, then start a thread outside the election sub-forum. We are talking about attitudes in the United States in a very specific time frame.

Furthermore what reason did Trump even have for walking into dressing rooms unannounced? For a man you treasures his privacy ("no one can see my top secret tax return") he sure gives no thought to anyone else's privacy. We see the same trait in the name calling. Trump HATES being called names, yet he is the first to call other people names. Someone with empathy would think "if I don't like being called names, then other people probably hate it as well. Therefore I should not call people names."

But Trump lacks the empathy to think that way. He is a self-centered a-hole who thinks his needs are more important than anyone else's. There is not a single example of Trump showing empathy. And that is just one more reason that this clown is unfit and unqualified to be president.

And as for the Master Persuader theory, it is still valid. Adams's mistake was thinking that Trump had persuader skills that extended beyond the world of real estate. Yeah, Adams thinks it was these allegations that did him in and it was not the people in his own,party distancing themselves from him and all the newspapers going out of their way to endorse Clinton. It was not Trump telling all the data analysts and election advisors to get lost because Trump thought he was a genius at persuading people and no one could possibly know more than him. It was not bragging that he knew more than the generals.
 
Last edited:
PartSkeptic said:
Trump walks into a dressing room? And people get upset? They do not know the world of modelling, do they? And in the 1970's I went to the men's showers in Sweden and three mothers were standing right there waiting for their kids with naked men and boys walking by.
Click to expand...

As noted, Sweden isn't the US. There are vastly different cultural and behavioral expectations in that context. Also, the point is not so much that he went into the dressing room; it's WHY he went into the dressing room. The story isn't that he went in there with innocent intentions and the women happened to be getting changed. Rather, he went in there specifically to see the women in a state of undress and used his position as pretext to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom