The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Credit where credit is due, Trump doesn't want to rush into a war with Iran. In that regard he has my full support.

Of course, Putin may has some say in the matter.
 
Segnosaur said:
...The worst possible scenario is that the economy staggers along until late 2020, a democrat gets elected, and then the economy crashes at the end of 2020/2021 (leaving Trump and the republicans to falsely claim that they are the ones who are best at handling the economy.)
Click to expand...
I know this is late, but that scenario is exactly what I expect to happen.
 
wareyin said:
Oof, you really just keep stepping on that rake. Doug Jones is a Democratic Senator elected last year to Congress from...Alabama.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Roy Moore may actually compare unfavorably to a chimp in a red hat, though?

wareyin said:
That's nice. It has nothing to do with your ignorance of a Democratic Senator after the chimp with the red hat on lost to him.
Click to expand...

Hey! Don't insult the chimp!:mad:

wareyin said:
In reality, they were giving Trump about 1 in 4 odds of winning.
Click to expand...

Which... honestly were pretty fair odds, given the situation.

The Atheist said:
Very good - which shows Hillary with a 75% chance of winning.

They were clearly not authoritative, and still aren't.
Click to expand...

And? Quite seriously, there isn't much of a point to be had here. 538 isn't authoritative? In the sense that no poll is authoritative. 538 helps to broaden the field, either way, increasing overall accuracy. Now, given your phrasing here, it quite seems that you're pushing the idiocy that is the claim that providing a 51% or greater percentage chance, based on the data available, is the same thing as claiming that a particular outcome will definitely happen.

The Atheist said:
Just think - Obama was so far ahead bookies closed their books and paid out on him a week early. If you guys keep missing the point, you'll wake up next November 1 and find the same thing happens with Trump - he'll be a winner before a vote is cast.
Click to expand...

What point? That Trump had a real shot at winning in 2016? Those of us who had paid attention to the behavior of Republicans (and Democrats) knew that, though? That Trump has a very real chance of being elected in 2020? Even if he was impeached and actually removed from office before the 2020 elections, it honestly would not surprise me that Republicans would immediately vote him back into office. It would hardly be the first grossly inept, corrupt, or criminal person that they've done so for.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Republican women know their place. ;)
Click to expand...

Of course. They deserve abortions on demand because, well, they have their circumstances. Everyone else who wants one is a shameless hussy who shouldn't have a choice in the matter! That's a very special place.

Craig4 said:
Jesus ****, does the stupid bitch not know what an advisor is? Are we really going to war because Trump doesn't have the balls to fire his national security advisor or at least know when to give him a 64 pack of Crayolas and stack of coloring books? The president is such a little pussy to his staff.
Click to expand...

Did you forget? Trump views going to war as something that *increases* a President's popularity, and has apparently been talked down from going to war... over and over and over. But then, he's a bully and has made it perfectly clear that he's happy to try to bully others into giving him whatever, if he thinks he can get away with it.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
538 also had Donald Trump losing on the morning of election day, ...,.
Click to expand...
That's not true. IIRC, they had his chances of winning on the eve of the election at 30%. That is NOT the same as saying he was going to win.

Sheesh, TA, you know better.

ETA: Preempted by almost everybody.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
538 also had Donald Trump losing on the morning of election day, so I don't see them as all that authoritative on the subject. I also don't believe Silver's weighting of polls is ideal.
Click to expand...
Not that old canard again.

Experts gave him a 20% chance of winning, based on all available facts. That doesn't mean they were wrong when he won.

If you roll a die, and I say you've got a 1/6 chance of rolling a six, am I wrong if you roll a six?

ETA
The Atheist said:
Very good - which shows Hillary with a 75% chance of winning.

They were clearly not authoritative, and still aren't.
Click to expand...
Please explain your reasoning. Right now it's gnome underpants logic.

1. they gave Trump a 20-30% chance of winning.
2. Trump won.
3-?. (blanks that need filling in)
Therefore 538 is not authorative!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Are you really under the impression that a 75% chance of winning means it's a lock?
Click to expand...
Extra Credits, I think it was, had a nice episode recently on how some game devs program their games so that hit chances and whatnot are actually more in tune with what the players expect, so as to prevent whining.

So for example, when something has a 90% hit chance, and players think "90%" means "a guaranteed hit", they'll have that weapon hit 99% of the time.

If something has a 50% hit chance, the devs might program it to not hit randomly, with a 50% chance of hitting, but roughly every second time, because that's what many people think "50%" means. They for some reason expect a hit-miss-hit-miss pattern, forgetting that randomness is, well, random.

Humans are pretty bad at understanding statistics.

ETA: actually found it, well worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLXLlJ7FhJU
 
Last edited:
The best way to illustrate this would be to repeat the 2016 election at least four times.

As Hugh Laurie said after the Brexit Referendum:

"Best of three?"
 
SezMe said:
That's not true. IIRC, they had his chances of winning on the eve of the election at 30%. That is NOT the same as saying he was going to win...

ETA: Preempted by almost everybody.
Click to expand...

Me too but... Having reread the 538 report from election eve in 2016, Silver's model analyzed polling -- he wasn't using a crystal ball -- and he was finding the race was getting tighter. His report was headlined: "Election Update: Don’t Ignore The Polls — Clinton Leads, But It’s A Close Race."
At the same time, it shouldn’t be hard to see how Clinton could lose. She’s up by about 3 percentage points nationally, and 3-point polling errors happen fairly often, including in the last two federal elections. Link
Click to expand...

Not hard to see how Clinton would lose? Polling showed her up by 3% and she won the election by 2.1%. But the polls had her winning Pennsylvania and tied in Florida, she lost both thus losing all forty-nine electoral votes and the electoral college.

The 2016 presidential election was unlike any we've ever had and we wound up with a president who is unlike any we've ever had.
 
Trump Tweets

My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!
 
Norman Alexander said:
As long as they make him look good and do what he wants when he shouts...usually bringing him his hamberder and Diet Coke in a sealed container...Trump doesn't give a square blue **** what his people do around him.
Click to expand...

They are certainly not making him look good. The embassy staff in Baghdad evacuating story buried the role out if his immigration plan.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail sentences, and this was TREASON!
Click to expand...

If the stupid butch doesn't like it, he shouldn't have been a dirty Russian whore.
 
newyorkguy said:
Me too but... Having reread the 538 report from election eve in 2016, Silver's model analyzed polling -- he wasn't using a crystal ball -- and he was finding the race was getting tighter. His report was headlined: "Election Update: Don’t Ignore The Polls — Clinton Leads, But It’s A Close Race."


Not hard to see how Clinton would lose? Polling showed her up by 3% and she won the election by 2.1%. But the polls had her winning Pennsylvania and tied in Florida, she lost both thus losing all forty-nine electoral votes and the electoral college.

The 2016 presidential election was unlike any we've ever had and we wound up with a president who is unlike any we've ever had.
Click to expand...

Of the 28% chance they gave him, over a third of that was the scenario Clinton popular vote/trump electoral vote.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Not that old canard again.

Experts gave him a 20% chance of winning, based on all available facts. That doesn't mean they were wrong when he won.

If you roll a die, and I say you've got a 1/6 chance of rolling a six, am I wrong if you roll a six?

ETA

Please explain your reasoning. Right now it's gnome underpants logic.

1. they gave Trump a 20-30% chance of winning.
2. Trump won.
3-?. (blanks that need filling in)
Therefore 538 is not authorative!
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.
 
Minoosh said:
Credit where credit is due, Trump doesn't want to rush into a war with Iran.
Click to expand...
Of course he doesn't want to RUSH into war.

He wants to wait until 2020 so he could use the war to boost his polling during the election itself. If he rushes and starts a war right away then it gives voters too much time to realize "this was a bad idea" before the actual election day.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Not that old canard again.

Experts gave him a 20% chance of winning, based on all available facts. That doesn't mean they were wrong when he won.

If you roll a die, and I say you've got a 1/6 chance of rolling a six, am I wrong if you roll a six?

ETA

Please explain your reasoning. Right now it's gnome underpants logic.

1. they gave Trump a 20-30% chance of winning.
2. Trump won.
3-?. (blanks that need filling in)
Therefore 538 is not authorative!
Click to expand...

Safe-Keeper said:
Extra Credits, I think it was, had a nice episode recently on how some game devs program their games so that hit chances and whatnot are actually more in tune with what the players expect, so as to prevent whining.

So for example, when something has a 90% hit chance, and players think "90%" means "a guaranteed hit", they'll have that weapon hit 99% of the time.

If something has a 50% hit chance, the devs might program it to not hit randomly, with a 50% chance of hitting, but roughly every second time, because that's what many people think "50%" means. They for some reason expect a hit-miss-hit-miss pattern, forgetting that randomness is, well, random.

Humans are pretty bad at understanding statistics.

ETA: actually found it, well worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLXLlJ7FhJU
Click to expand...

Putting the "E" in ISF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom