Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
I probably wasn't very clear. Let me try again.

People are looking at, "what is probability of 6 heads?" as if that is the only possible question. It isn't the only possible question.

If you are only talking about probability of 6 heads, I don't disagree at all.

But if instead of asking, what is the probability we ask, "how unusual is it to get 6 heads in a row?" it is a different question. And the answer is, it's not unusual at all.

One is theoretical probability, which cannot be applied to the realty of 6 actual coin tosses. You will not get 3 heads and 3 tails every time. Because probability explains the odds of large samples.

Toss a coin 100 times and record the result. Is it unusual (or odd) to get 6 heads in a row among those 100 coin tosses? I will assume we agree it would not be unusual.

Given that a run of 6 is not unusual in a 100 coin toss, is it more or less likely that run of 6 will happen with the first 6 tosses than somewhere in the middle? There is nothing inherent in the coin toss that says you have to toss the coin more than six times to get 6 heads in a row.

Every coin toss has a 50:50 chance of heads or tails.

If you forget about heads and tails for a minute and assign each combination a name. Of your 64 names what is the probability of any one name coming up?

Or try this, if you toss a coin and you get 5 heads in a row, are you now more likely to get tails in the next toss?

Probability is one thing. And we agree on the probability of 6 heads in 6 tosses. So what then explains the fact one gets less probable outcomes? Unless you are talking about a huge number of tosses, the probability of getting 6 heads isn't useful. Especially not in this case.


It doesn't mean I don't agree with you. It means I think one can look at the probability differently than just the probability of 6 heads.

Given there are 64 different possible combinations (remember this is 6 coin tosses here, not 6,000 tosses) it's more useful to consider each of those combinations has an equal chance of occurring.
Click to expand...


:wackywub:
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Hillary was blowing the competition out a year ago in the polls. On one hand she won the caucus... but on the other that notion that she had no serious competition in this case isn't helped either. Sanders didnt lose by much at all. So sanders supporters can view that as a relative success
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing the next state, New Hampshire, with the national polls where Clinton holds a sizable lead.
 
PhantomWolf said:
The thing is that a year ago there was no opposition to Hillary because no-one knew anyone else. To expect her numbers to remain static as other players made themselves known was crazy. In the end however, Iowa was one of the States that is strong in the democratic demographic that is showing major support for Bernie, white under-45 males, and yet he tied it. Commentators that looked at the demographics of the State were saying he could very likely win, and on top of that, the numbers that they saw with Obama didn't play out either. Bernie's supporters are clinging to threads of hope, but the reality is that unless something chances dramatically in the next few weeks, after NH, it's going to be all uphill for him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's so much better to portray Clinton as tanking, to compare Sanders to Obama, to report that 08 is happening to poor little Hillary again.

If Clinton's numbers move up in New Hampshire, what do you want to bet the news reports, Sanders did well rather than Sanders' numbers tanked.
 
Weekend at Bernie's

Bernie Sanders Won Last Night's Democratic Debate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/bernie-sanders-won-last-n_b_9158148.html

02/04/2016 09:17 am ET | Updated 12 hours ago
William Astore
Writer, Professor, Retired Lt. Colonel, Air Force
...In sum, if you're happy with the status quo, you'll get plenty of that with Clinton. If you want change, if you're tired of a "rigged" economy and a corrupt political process, Sanders is far more likely to act in your favor...
Click to expand...
(please read the fuller article for it's analysis...which has nothing to do with my comments or this post title)

establishment (conservative-lite) democratic voters vote based on their fears, progressive democratic voters vote based upon their goals for the nation.

(did Hillary just say that she didn't just want to stop bad things from happening, that she also wanted to stop good things? really!??)
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
(did Hillary just say that she didn't just want to stop bad things from happening, that she also wanted to stop good things? really!??)
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that too. :D
Possibly the most interesting thing tonight was, asking her to release the transcripts from the speeches to Banks, etc...
She said she would look into it, but the fear washed over her face as her lips moved!:thumbsup:

So...that's never going to happen.
 
Trakar said:
Bernie Sanders Won Last Night's Democratic Debate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/bernie-sanders-won-last-n_b_9158148.html

02/04/2016 09:17 am ET | Updated 12 hours ago
William Astore
Writer, Professor, Retired Lt. Colonel, Air Force
(please read the fuller article for it's analysis...which has nothing to do with my comments or this post title)

establishment (conservative-lite) democratic voters vote based on their fears, progressive democratic voters vote based upon their goals for the nation.

(did Hillary just say that she didn't just want to stop bad things from happening, that she also wanted to stop good things? really!??)
Click to expand...

So, noted progressive Wm. Astore told us hours before the debate that Sanders won? (Check the time stamps.)

C'mon! There are real issues to be discussed (or be disgusted by). A puff piece by a supporter, pre-written before the "debate" started? That's not one of them.
 
I think Clinton "won" the debate in that she continued to present herself well. Sanders was basically himself: big on ideas but not on a pathway to achieve them. For Clinton to have lost, she'd have had to commit some major gaffe.

As it is, I doubt this debate will move the numbers very much in any direction at all. Clinton loses NH but kills in SC and from thereon out.
 
Foolmewunz said:
So, noted progressive Wm. Astore told us hours before the debate that Sanders won? (Check the time stamps.)

C'mon! There are real issues to be discussed (or be disgusted by). A puff piece by a supporter, pre-written before the "debate" started? That's not one of them.
Click to expand...

He's not talking about tonight's debate, he's talking about last night's Town Hall.
 
I watched it. They both did really well. But Clinton still came out looking most confident, Sanders came out looking like the single issue campaign finance reform that is his platform.

Claiming Sanders won is pure bull. MSNBC's post debate commentary with sexist and closet-Hillary-hater Chris Matthews wasn't very impartial. CNN did a little better with the post debate commentary.

The bottom line is there was no clearly superior winner. I think Clinton addressed the concerns people have about her ties to corporations and banks while Sanders did nothing to address how he is going to change the country unless a movement happens. He thinks it's happening, but outside of his circle of supporters, it isn't.
 
Trakar said:
He's not talking about tonight's debate, he's talking about last night's Town Hall.
Click to expand...

Ooops. I get caught up in traps because my computer gives "now" dates sometimes in my time (12 hours ahead of you) and sometimes in the time it occurs on your side of the pond.

Still... Astore is a progressive cheerleader.
 
Dog Town said:
Yes, I noticed that too. :D
Possibly the most interesting thing tonight was, asking her to release the transcripts from the speeches to Banks, etc...
She said she would look into it, but the fear washed over her face as her lips moved!:thumbsup:

So...that's never going to happen.
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth, I was tweaking a spreadsheet, and just listening to them go at it. That comment was so unexpected by me, that it took me a few seconds to really get the scope of what he was going at. Made me put the work away till tomorrow. It would be interesting to examine the difference between what she said at her Wall Street boardroom talks and what she says in public democratic primary speeches.
 
Trakar said:
To tell you the truth, I was tweaking a spreadsheet, and just listening to them go at it. That comment was so unexpected by me, that it took me a few seconds to really get the scope of what he was going at. Made me put the work away till tomorrow. It would be interesting to examine the difference between what she said at her Wall Street boardroom talks and what she says in public democratic primary speeches.
Click to expand...

It would be even more interesting if a recording turns up with her saying something like "I have to look like I'm doing something about the banks, but I promise it won't cost you a dime." It could be the equivalent of Romney's "47%."
 
Bob001 said:
It would be even more interesting if a recording turns up with her saying something like "I have to look like I'm doing something about the banks, but I promise it won't cost you a dime." It could be the equivalent of Romney's "47%."
Click to expand...
It would be even more interesting if...

All the Hillary haters admitted that the real reason they don't like her is because she is a woman. It could be their "47%".
 
Roger Ramjets said:
It would be even more interesting if...

All the Hillary haters admitted that the real reason they don't like her is because she is a woman. It could be their "47%".
Click to expand...

I think you might find that many "Hillary haters" would be pleased to have a chance to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand. You don't have to "hate" Hillary to recognize her flaws, not least of which is the prospect of Bill's return to the White House in an undefined but doubtless influential role.
 
Bob001 said:
not least of which is the prospect of Bill's return to the White House in an undefined but doubtless influential role.
Click to expand...


All spouses come to the White House with undefined but doubtless influential roles. Edith Wilson basically was the President. Abigail Adams was John's closest adviser. Eleanor Roosevelt was exceedingly active in civil rights.

Clinton has already outlined that she believes she'll be relying on the former President in the same way he's being used now - as a special envoy and ambassador at large when the government needs him.
 
Thing is that DavidJames has pointed out for a while now how the conservatives on this forum pretty much only post complaining about the democratic candidates and policies while hardly ever posting support for any particular Republican candidate or their policies. He even started a thread specifically to try to get the conservatives to do just that for a change.

No such luck though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom