Donald Trump

[Ten oz]

Of course, the convention isn't until later this month so anything is still possible, but you've been downplaying Trump this whole thread and in the end you were simply wrong (many of us were, but not all of us were so consistent with the "pish posh, nothing to fear, folks, why all the hubbub" mentality you've had).

 

 

You on February 21:

 

You on February 24:

 

You on March 3:

 

You on March 6:

 

You on March 9:

 

You on April 14:

 

You on April 18:

 

You on April 19:

 

 

All I'm saying is that I encourage some reflection on where the electorate truly is right now and how big the risk truly is here (especially in light of the recent and incredibly unexpected Brexit vote where arguments similar to yours here were consistently made beforehand).

You releaze that primaries and the general election are apple and oranges don't you?

 

Not just that but if you read my arguments they mostly centered around delegates acting and Trump only receiving 40% of the vote. When Cruz dropped out Trump was only at 39% of the vote and finished with 44%.

 

I think you are conflating expectation here. There is ZERO indication statistically that Trump has a anything but a unusually low chance of winning the general election So you are using his primary wins as an example but the two are different. Not only that but Trump statistically always had a polling advantage in the Primary. I just didn't believe the PARTY would allow him to be there nominee. So the arguments then and now have no relationship and I think you are aware of that. The race is different, the data is different, the electorate is different. You are trying to say I was wrong about who would win a Tennis tournament so perhaps I am wrong about who will win a boxing match. It doesn't work that way.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[iNow]

You releaze that primaries and the general election are apple and oranges don't you?

Of course.

 

I think you are conflating expectation here. There is ZERO indication statistically that Trump has a anything but a unusually low chance of winning the general election So you are using his primary wins as an example but the two are different.

Not really. I was mostly pointing out that you've been down-playing his chances all along and that should encourage some reflection (and possible adjustment) to your mental model.

 

The race is different, the data is different, the electorate is different.

Again, of course.

 

You are trying to say I was wrong about who would win a Tennis tournament so perhaps I am wrong about who will win a boxing match.

Not really. It's still a tennis match, just on a bigger stage.

 

I follow fivethirtyeight and the Nate Silver team, too. They also were horribly wrong:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-four-things-i-learned-from-the-donald-trump-primary/

[Ten oz]

Of course.

 

Not really. I was mostly pointing out that you've been down-playing his chances all along and that should encourage some reflection (and possible adjustment) to your mental model.

 

Again, of course.

 

Not really. It's still a tennis match, just on a bigger stage.

 

I follow fivethirtyeight and the Nate Silver team, too. They also were horribly wrong:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-four-things-i-learned-from-the-donald-trump-primary/

I said Tournament and not match. Predicting the outcome of a tournament is different than that of a single match. A single match is much easier to predict than a whole tournament. That was my point. The general is one vote on one day; one match. A primary is a series of votes that happen over time; multiple matches like a tournament

 

Trump always statistically looked good in the primary. My position was nuanced and based on what I thought delegates would do. You are simplifying my position greatly by saying I underestimated him.

 

538 was wrong about the primaries; the general election is not the primaries. For starters everyone will vote on the same day. Momentum from previous races has no impact. There is not 17 candidates running allowing individuals to carry states with only a third of the vote, the electorate itself is different and not merely partisan, the electorate is much larger, and etc, etc, etc. 538's track record for predicting the general elections is the best one out there.

 

If you insist on comparing the primaries to the general Clinton got nearly 25% more votes than did Trump. No Republican since Nixon has won the White House without winning at least 60% of the vote in the GOP primary and Trump only got 44%. Meanwhile Clinton's 55% is better than Obama did in 08' or Bill Clinton did in 92'. And as you are aware polling shows Deomocrats are more satisfied with their nominee than are republicans. So even a comparison of primaries reflects poorly for Trump.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Ten oz

[iNow]

If you insist on comparing the primaries to the general

Except, I'm not doing that. I'm just saying we should reflect on where we've been wrong and adjust our confidence level about future projections accordingly.

[Ten oz]

Except, I'm not doing that. I'm just saying we should reflect on where we've been wrong and adjust our confidence level about future projections accordingly.

You are saying that anecdotally without providing substantive information. Low probabilities do not increase each other. What does the multiplacation rule of probabilities tell us? The likelihood of any 2 events happening in order or together is lower that than likelihood of either single event happening in isolation. So while it is surprising that the GOP has allowed Trump to be their presumptive nominee his probability of become POTUS in the toilet.

 

He surprised us once so he can surprise us again is just an anecdotal statement. I am looking at the data. I will not stop trusting the data because Trump managed to become the presumptive nominee. Trump's victories actually reinforced the accuracy of polling for this election cycle and where are the polls today for Trump?

 

Trump is a bully. He bullied Jeb, Cruz and the rest. His supporters, many of whom I work with sadly, thrive on the notion that Trump intimidates. Trump's tough guy facade is only bolstered by nervous progressive lossing confidence because Trump won a partisan GOP primary where over 90% of his supporters were white and over 60% male. Those demographics won't cut it in the general.

[iNow]

I am looking at the data. I will not stop trusting the data...

Good deal. I'd never advocate that one do otherwise.

[Ten oz]

Good deal. I'd never advocate that one do otherwise.

But you are advocating I reflect and possible adjust my mental model. What data is there to indicate Trump is formidable in the general?

[iNow]

I'm not arguing about the formidability of Trumps election chances so don't feel the need to offer data in that regard. Simplified, I'm arguing that past experience and overwhelmingly incorrect assessments should introduce more uncertainty into forward looking projections and decrease confidence in prognostications and proclamations.

[Ten oz]

I'm not arguing about the formidability of Trumps election chances so don't feel the need to offer data in that regard. Simplified, I'm arguing that past experience and overwhelmingly incorrect assessments should introduce more uncertainty into forward looking projections and decrease confidence in prognostications and proclamations.

I would agree with this if my previous "overwhelmingly incorrect assessments" had been based on polling data. Rather they were based on the delegates acting against Trump. They didn't, I was wrong.

 

You follow 538, Nate Silver's take away from his wrong predictions was that polls were a better forecaster than the other variables being considered throughout the primary. Okay, what do polls tell us now? Clinton has a sizable lead nationally and a sizable lead in swing states.

 

And while Trump is the presumptive nominee it is worth pointing out that he did worse that previous nominees. His 44% of the popular primary vote is worse than Romney 12', McCain 08', Bush 00', Dole 96', Bush 88', Reagan 80' and Ford 76'. So while Trump did pull it off he did so by weak margins.

[iNow]

Agreed

[MigL]

You've got it wrong, Ten oz.

I don't think iNow is accusing you of underestimating D. Trump.

He's saying don't underestimate the stupidity of voters !

( and citing BREXIT as an example )

[iNow]

He's saying don't underestimate the stupidity of voters !

( and citing BREXIT as an example )

Lol. That wasn't my direct point, but it's certainly related and ties strongly to my thinking these last few posts.

 

I'm reminded of the saying, "Think about how dumb the average person is, then think about the fact that by definition half of the population is even dumber than that."

 

That said, I respect Ten Oz and how he's pretty consistent about using data to make his points. Wish more people would approach politics that way.

[iNow]

So Trump flew into DC to meet with Congressional Republicans today to calm them down a bit about his presidency, to assuage their fears. While doing so, he promised them he'd defend a nonexistent part of the Constitution. Oops.

 

https://t.co/g7Vqnp19rZ

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) left the meeting worried about Trump’s grasp on the basics of the Constitution. At a lunch with reporters afterward, he recalled that the candidate did not seem to know what he was promising to defend.

 

"I wasn’t particularly impressed," said Sanford. "It was the normal stream of consciousness that’s long on hyperbole and short on facts. At one point, somebody asked about Article I powers: What will you do to protect them? I think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII."

'Merca

[waitforufo]

So Trump flew into DC to meet with Congressional Republicans today to calm them down a bit about his presidency, to assuage their fears. While doing so, he promised them he'd defend a nonexistent part of the Constitution. Oops.

 

https://t.co/g7Vqnp19rZ

 

'Merca

Perhaps it Article XII is only enforced in 7 States.

 

[swansont]

Perhaps it Article XII is only enforced in 7 States.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

What does this video have to do with Trump?

[iNow]

I'll give credit where credit's due to waitforufo's post for being clever, an easy shorthand suggesting that all candidates make gaffes.

 

It even made me briefly chuckle, but clearly it's little more than a false equivalence being suggested (as Trump making inaccurate, uninformed, ignorant comments...especially about the constitution so many people respect and cherish... is merely par for the course and the same cannot be validly asserted about Obama...a former constitutional law professor and senior lecturer at university... when he ran).

[Ten oz]

You've got it wrong, Ten oz.

I don't think iNow is accusing you of underestimating D. Trump.

He's saying don't underestimate the stupidity of voters !

( and citing BREXIT as an example )

Brexit seems like a good example but I do not believe it is. Brexit polled strong. Brexit was polling within a percent with 8-10% of those polled as undecided through most of June. The result was unexpected because people just couldn't believe the level of stupidity on display. But a look at polling shows that Brexit had a strong chance for success.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/

 

 

In the Case of the general election here in the U.S. of A. Trump is not polling strong. Pew Research, Reuters, Gravis, PPP, USA Today, Quinnipac, YouGov, NBC, ABC, Foxnews, CNN, Monmouth, and etc all have Clinton beating Trump. The only poll that has show Trump as winning in over a month now is rasmussuen and it can't even get Trump above its margin of error. Brexit and Trump are not the same.

[MigL]

True, D. Trump and Brexit are not the same.

But neither is the 'stupidity' factor.

Don't forget that the US is the country where people think its OK to gas up their car while carrying a gun, borrow trillions of dollars from China to fight wars and support our lifestyle, allow hate groups like the KKK, etc, etc...

[Bill Angel]

Here is a good quote from Carlo Rovelli, an Italian theoretical physicist, which would seem to apply to Donald Trump, especially because of Trump's pronouncements concerning the Global Warming controversy.

"To trust immediate intuitions rather than collective examination that is rational, careful, and intelligent is not wisdom: it is the presumption of an old man who refuses to believe that the great world outside his village is any different from the one that he has always known."
From the essay "Probability, Time, and the Heat of Black Holes" by Carlo Rovelli

 

[iNow]

Mike Pence of against gay marriage and cigarettes don't cause cancer fame has been selected as VP running mate for Trump.

 

Their logo is NSFW, and it's no coincidence that their initials make me think of a need for some TP.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-logo-criticized_us_57891d63e4b0867123e115a0

[Airbrush]

What, no recent postings about Trump?

 

Anyhow in the news this Friday morning was an 11-year-old boy who asked Pence if his job as VP would be to "soften" what Trump says.

 

How did Pence react to this question? First Pence acted like he could not believe what the boy just asked, so Pence asked the boy to repeat the question (like it was off-base). Then Pence laughed AT the boy along with the crowd like the question was silly. Then Pence answered by NOT answering the question but just stated that he is standing side by side with Trump. Then the mother of the boy said something like "good answer". The news reporter seemed satisfied by the answer and never stated the obvious, that Pence IGNORED the boy's question.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

He's playing the "the election is rigged card" early enough that he's clearly thinking failure is a possibility. I just don't think he's going to get much traction about the debate schedule objections. His base REALLY wants to see him call Hillary a cunt on national television. They won't care if she makes better points, shows more leadership and understanding of the demands of the job, and they certainly won't care if she brings up every crazy thing he's said. They want blood in the water.

 

But I think Trump knows his base won't win the election for him. I think he's worried about losing too many people if Hillary makes him look like an idiot. And I just don't see much hope for him debating Hillary Clinton on issues. There's too much he doesn't know and he's also unwilling to spend the time and effort to correct that. His knowledge of government is even more superficial than he is. Kneejerk reactions coupled with ignorance is a losing formula, and I think the debates will highlight this, if Hillary can keep her cool and not try to out-trump the Donald.

[Airbrush]

Trump reminds me of my boss at my last job. My boss was the owner of the company and a total dictator. Employees were always griping about him behind his back. His nick name was "Chucky" because he was short and walked real fast like the evil doll in Child's Play. Everybody had to agree with everything he said so over the years he became quite delusional about his own importance. Near the end of his term as "boss" there were too many complaints about him including sexual harassment. Then his daughter took over as boss and he was put out to pasture.

 

Trump lived his entire life surrounded by yes-people so he was spoiled by his parents and in business his every whim was accepted as law within his companuy. He is smart but delusional. My prediction is he will lose in a landslide, but we need to stay scared until election day, people need to get out and VOTE, because Trump MAY be our next president. Imagine how hard it will be to listen to his big mouth flapping about anything and everything for the next 4 years.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

Why do so many keep insisting that we all must play scared as a means of ensuring turnout? Is "fear" what drives turn out? Were we all afraid of McCain and Romney? Did Bush win based on fear of Al Gore? I don't follow the fear logic. Trump is a flawed candidate that is struggling to even win support amongst leaders in his own party. He is being crushed in the polls nationally and state by state his path to an electoral win is even a bigger challenge. I see no reason to create a facade of fear in hopes of driving up turnout. I think people vote for what they want at higher rates than what they don't want.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ten oz

[Prometheus]

...I think people vote for what they want at higher rates than what they don't want.

 

One day you're a happy European citizen, the next - bam - your peers decide to take that from you.

 

Don't take the risk.