Support NeoGAF

[BertramCooper]

So I have a ticket to Trump's rally tonight but I don't think I can bring myself to go.

I originally wanted to go out of morbid curiosity, but I don't think I can handle it if I start witnessing people getting physically attacked and mercilessly harassed by his idiot supporters.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So I have a ticket to Trump's rally tonight but I don't think I can bring myself to go.

I originally wanted to go out of morbid curiosity, but I don't think I can handle it if I start witnessing people getting physically attacked and mercilessly harassed by his idiot supporters.

why did you pay trump money

 

[Holmes]

It's free to attend Trump rallies, right? You just reserve your seat online. Actually are there any campaign rallies that charge to get in? It's not a fundraising stop.

 

[BertramCooper]

why did you pay trump money

Tickets were free.

Sadly, he now has my email address, which...ugh.

 

[Bowdz]

Meanwhile, on Twitter..

This really is Donald Trump's theme song with regards to the GOP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14K6KtBlusY

Donny da King stumping the GOP.

 

[GnawtyDog]

...

Meanwhile, on Twitter..

Trump flexing that muscle in his back-pocket. It's called the triceptoral run.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Someone should go there with a Muslims 4 Trump sign.

 

[BertramCooper]

I wonder if Paul Ryan regrets not running for president this time around.

I mean, he's probably glad he avoided putting himself and his family through the hell of facing Donald Trump, but I'd have to think that Ryan would be doing far better against Trump than folks like Jeb! and Rubio.

 

[B-Dubs]

I wonder if Paul Ryan regrets not running for president this time around.

I mean, he's probably glad he avoided putting himself and his family through the hell of facing Donald Trump, but I'd have to think that Ryan would be doing far better against Trump than folks like Jeb! and Rubio.

Trump would likely tear him in two with the VP debate, "why would the GOP want to elect a loser who couldn't out debate an old man?" or whatever.

 

[BertramCooper]

Trump would likely tear him in two with the VP debate, "why would the GOP want to elect a loser who couldn't out debate an old man?" or whatever.

Ryan would be a very credible alternative to Trump - far more credible than anyone else currently in this race.

He's indisputably hard right while being immensely appealing to moderates and the party establishment. He'd also be cleaning up in the endorsement game.

I think if you pop out Rubio and replace him with Ryan, you're looking at a completely different race right now.

 

[Basileus777]

Ryan would be a very credible alternative to Trump - far more credible than anyone else currently in this race.

He's indisputably hard right while being immensely appealing to moderates and the party establishment. He'd also be cleaning up in the endorsement game.

I think if you pop out Rubio and replace him with Ryan, you're looking at a completely different race right now.

It makes me wonder what would have happened with the Speakership if Ryan was running for President.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Hello PoliGAF, I'm pretty much only participating in political threads these days so I figure it's about time I make my way over to the community side and see how it is over here.

So, what do you guys make of that Nate Silver thread? Is he right in that the party ultimately decides in the end or is the primary crazy enough this time around to challenge that line of thought? I was active in 2008 and 2012 and this primary doesn't seem remotely comparable imo, but I see people keep bringing up the flavors of the month in those primaries like they are.

 

[Cerium]

It makes me wonder what would have happened with the Speakership if Ryan was running for President.

Nothing good.

I also don't think Ryan would do that well if he ran for President in this cycle. Freaking Ted Cruz is barely considered outsider enough; Ryan was anointed by the establishment as their budgetary messiah and was Chairman of Ways and Means. Being on the ticket with Romney last time would probably hurt him too.

I can hear Trump now: "He's a loser! We tried to run him as Vice President four years ago and it was a total disaster! Choked like a dog! Couldn't beat senile Joe Biden in a debate! Lost his own district to Obama! We need to nominate a winner!"

 

[RustyNails]

Hello PoliGAF, I'm pretty much only participating in political threads these days so I figure it's about time I make my way over to the community side and see how it is over here.

So, what do you guys make of that Nate Silver thread? Is he right in that the party ultimately decides in the end or is the primary crazy enough this time around to challenge that line of thought? I was active in 2008 and 2012 and this primary doesn't seem remotely comparable imo, but I see people keep bringing up the flavors of the month in those primaries like they are.

Nate silver thread is people who dont know much about politics and only focusing on numbers, very mich like Silver.

 

[BertramCooper]

Nothing good.

I also don't think Ryan would do that well if he ran for President in this cycle. Freaking Ted Cruz is barely considered outsider enough; Ryan was anointed by the establishment as their budgetary messiah and was Chairman of Ways and Means. Being on the ticket with Romney last time would probably hurt him too.

I can hear Trump now: "He's a loser! We tried to run him as Vice President four years ago and it was a total disaster! Choked like a dog! Couldn't beat senile Joe Biden in a debate! We need to nominate a winner!"

The difference is that the establishment loves Ryan and hates Cruz.

Ryan could coalesce establishment support in a way that could actually rival the Trump/Carson crazies -while still being sufficiently right-wing enough to appeal to the hard-righters who aren't complete idiots and don't want to throw away any chance of winning the general.

 

[Cerium]

while still being sufficiently right-wing enough to appeal to the hard-righters

He's not though. At all. That's the point.

 

[East Lake]

Hello PoliGAF, I'm pretty much only participating in political threads these days so I figure it's about time I make my way over to the community side and see how it is over here.

So, what do you guys make of that Nate Silver thread? Is he right in that the party ultimately decides in the end or is the primary crazy enough this time around to challenge that line of thought? I was active in 2008 and 2012 and this primary doesn't seem remotely comparable imo, but I see people keep bringing up the flavors of the month in those primaries like they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr7BtuwsUY&t=32m35s

 

[Retromelon]

Someone should go there with a Muslims 4 Trump sign.

bertram could you please do this. please.

 

[BertramCooper]

He's not though. At all. That's the point.

There are people in the Trump contingent who love the shit he's spewing but do have genuine concerns about his electability.

The problem is there's no credible compromise candidate for these folks right now to fall back on.

Ryan is the type who could have been that person.

 

[Snake]

Hello PoliGAF, I'm pretty much only participating in political threads these days so I figure it's about time I make my way over to the community side and see how it is over here.

So, what do you guys make of that Nate Silver thread? Is he right in that the party ultimately decides in the end or is the primary crazy enough this time around to challenge that line of thought?

The real answer, as unsatisfying as it is, is that we don't know. It could be that a large number of primary voters will start paying attention and pivot towards an establishment figure. Or it could be that Trump is legitimately dominating the attention of the Republican base.

Nate Silver is right about much of what he is saying, historically, but his claim that Trump has no real chance is misguided.

 

[Cerium]

There are people in the Trump contingent who love the shit he's spewing but do have genuine concerns about his electability.

The problem is there's no credible compromise candidate for these folks right now to fall back on.

Ryan is the type who could have been that person.

There's no statistical basis for this conclusion. Trump is seen, among Republicans, as the most electable candidate by far. There's simply no reason to believe that there's this large contingent of Trump fans who could be lured to an establishment darling and former running mate of Mitt Romney.

 

[thepotatoman]

Hello PoliGAF, I'm pretty much only participating in political threads these days so I figure it's about time I make my way over to the community side and see how it is over here.

So, what do you guys make of that Nate Silver thread? Is he right in that the party ultimately decides in the end or is the primary crazy enough this time around to challenge that line of thought? I was active in 2008 and 2012 and this primary doesn't seem remotely comparable imo, but I see people keep bringing up the flavors of the month in those primaries like they are.

As far as looking at numbers, he's right to cast some doubt on polling numbers at this point. I'm just not seeing what the statistical evidence is that Rubio has the best chance.

Thing is, if you get rid of polls, it seems like all you have left are subjective arguments on what you think Republican voters actually will want when they do start paying attention.

 

[BertramCooper]

There's no statistical basis for this conclusion. Trump is seen, among Republicans, as the most electable candidate by far. There's simply no reason to believe that there's this large contingent of Trump fans who could be lured to an establishment darling and former running mate of Mitt Romney.

They view him as the most electable because the establishment candidates are such complete fucking garbage.

Trump isn't a completely unique snowflake. There's a genuine dearth of credible establishment candidates in this race, and that's a huge contributor toward Trump's success.

And of course there's no statistical basis for my argument because I'm arguing a hypothetical. I never claimed there was one. I'm talking about how dynamics would be different if there actually were a decent establishment candidate in this race.

 

[thcsquad]

As pumped as I am for a Trump nomination, I have a really hard time believing that Clinton would sweep him to that extent. Even if Clinton got some 85% of the hispanic vote and pushed turn out, is that anywhere close what is needed to take Texas or Arizona if a significant portion of the white population ends up voting against Hillary instead of for Trump?

I don't have any numbers on me, but my recollections from earlier 'when will Texas turn blue' discussions are that the the proportion of eligible voters who are hispanic is already gigantic, and the only reason it's not already a swing state is that hispanic turnout is so incredibly low. Furthermore, a candidate like Trump could probably boost the share of hispanic vote that votes Democratic.

Would there be an anti-Hillary turnout the other way? Maybe, but I doubt it would be anywhere close to the Trump effect. Doesn't the anti-Hillary stereotype already vote religiously?

This is the type of question that probably can't be resolved until election day; likely voter polls would never show it.

 

[B-Dubs]

The real answer, as unsatisfying as it is, is that we don't know. It could be that a large number of primary voters will start paying attention and pivot towards an establishment figure. Or it could be that Trump is legitimately dominating the attention of the Republican base.

Nate Silver is right about much of what he is saying, historically, but his claim that Trump has no real chance is misguided.

Pretty much this. With the added caveat that with every passing day Trump spends atop the polls it becomes harder and harder to see him lose. If he isn't done but January, I feel like he's got it all sown up. Which is scary as fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAr7BtuwsUY&t=32m35s

Pretty much.

 

[AndyD]

I don't have any numbers on me, but my recollections from earlier 'when will Texas turn blue' discussions are that the the proportion of eligible voters who are hispanic is already gigantic, and the only reason it's not already a swing state is that hispanic turnout is so incredibly low. Furthermore, a candidate like Trump could probably boost the share of hispanic vote that votes Democratic.

Would there be an anti-Hillary turnout the other way? Maybe, but I doubt it would be anywhere close to the Trump effect. Doesn't the anti-Hillary stereotype already vote religiously?

This is the type of question that probably can't be resolved until election day; likely voter polls would never show it.

Indeed. I think with a strong extreme anti-immigration, racist platform you could increase the turnout significantly in a traditionally low turnout demographic. But as you say, it remains to be seen by how much.

And it all hinges on an incredibly strong ground game to get people to show up without being intimidated into hiding by the opposition.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't have any numbers on me, but my recollections from earlier 'when will Texas turn blue' discussions are that the the proportion of eligible voters who are hispanic is already gigantic, and the only reason it's not already a swing state is that hispanic turnout is so incredibly low. Furthermore, a candidate like Trump could probably boost the share of hispanic vote that votes Democratic.

Would there be an anti-Hillary turnout the other way? Maybe, but I doubt it would be anywhere close to the Trump effect. Doesn't the anti-Hillary stereotype already vote religiously?

This is the type of question that probably can't be resolved until election day; likely voter polls would never show it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...graphics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

If Hillary gets 85% of the Hispanic vote and their turnout increases from 48% to 60% of the electorate while the white vote falls by 2% she can win TX. Does even better if you apply that 85% to Asians/other with an increase of 49.3 to 60% turnout.

 

[SL128]

Bernie Sanders just committed campaign-suicide among the youth with that font choice.

 

[dramatis]

Bernie Sanders just committed campaign-suicide among the youth with that font choice.

I think this is something else we can blame on his campaign instead of the man himself.

But yes, why that font Sanders campaign people? You might as well have made it Comic Sans.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernie Sanders just committed campaign-suicide among the youth with that font choice.

I know you're kidding, but that's a horrible font. What were they thinking?

 

[Third Strike]

If the Republicans lose Texas one day... Is that the day they drop the crazies? There's no going back from that, especially if Texas continues to trend in that direction. The only thing left they'll have are the flyover states, the Deep South, and Appalachia, which all contain very little electoral points. Would Republicans have to finally drop the Southern Strategy if they want to win another presidential election?

 

[B-Dubs]

If the Republicans lose Texas one day... Is that the day they drop the crazies? There's no going back from that, especially if Texas continues to trend in that direction. The only thing left they'll have are the flyover states, the Deep South, and Appalachia, which all contain very little electoral points. Would Republicans have to finally drop the Southern Strategy if they want to win another presidential election?

If they lose Texas I honestly have no idea what their response would be. I assume the sane members of the party will do some real reflection at that point, but I'm not so sure the crazies will. The crazies are going to cry foul and things might get a little ugly.

That's all assuming it happens this cycle. If it happens 20 years down the road they'd probably finally admit they need to retool the party.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...graphics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

If Hillary gets 85% of the Hispanic vote and their turnout increases from 48% to 60% of the electorate while the white vote falls by 2% she can win TX. Does even better if you apply that 85% to Asians/other with an increase of 49.3 to 60% turnout.

Let's be real: Clinton is not getting 85% of the Hispanic vote (in Texas) even with Trump. Hispanic Texans are significantly more conservative than the national average and prioritize issues like abortion and the like much more highly. Even if she could, their turn-out would not be 60%. That would be an almost unprecedented shift in turnout. Black voter turnout in 2004 was 60%, in 2008 64% - in other words, Obama only increased black voter turnout by 4%. Texas will go blue one day, but today is not that day.

EDIT: oh, you mean 85% of the Hispanic vote nationally. Even then, I'm not convinced. The RCP model posits uniform swing, but the Hispanic vote is not at all geographically homogenous.

 

[Black Mamba]

The real answer, as unsatisfying as it is, is that we don't know. It could be that a large number of primary voters will start paying attention and pivot towards an establishment figure. Or it could be that Trump is legitimately dominating the attention of the Republican base.

Nate Silver is right about much of what he is saying, historically, but his claim that Trump has no real chance is misguided.

This is a great post. This is exactly what is happening.

Here's what's going on right now.

1. Trump's voters are not going to abandon Trump because of what he says/does

2. We don't know if Trump's supporters are reliable voters

3. We do know response rates this early for primaries are shit, generally

4. We don't know if there are a lot of primary voters to come and no idea how they'll vote

5. This election has the potential to be crazy.

6. We don't know how many candidates will be around in January.


Honestly, it's kind of impossible to know what's truly going on. Primaries aren't this noticed this far out as this cycle with the GOP thanks to the Trump Clown Show. I know people who watched the GOP debates who never would have otherwise. Some of them are definitely not voting GOP, too.

I think Nate makes a very solid argument in his article. But I also agree he's waaaay too dismissive of him because this election has major WTF factor going on. Especially if we're witnessing the GOP national party's deconstruction.

Quite honestly, the only thing I'm sure of is that Trump's supporters are here to stay. But I have no idea how many non-Trump supporters are out there not really paying attention, yet.

So Snake is right. We just don't know what the hell is going on in the GOP race.

IPretty much this. With the added caveat that with every passing day Trump spends atop the polls it becomes harder and harder to see him lose. If he isn't done but January, I feel like he's got it all sown up. Which is scary as fuck..

This is also true, of course. With each passing day that Trump basically stays the course, the odds of him winning go up. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could not have it 50% Trump vs 50% field or better for the Donald. There's just nothing that makes you think Donald is an underdog, let alone a big one.

But I wouldn't go nuts and give up much more than 50% right now. I think once Iowa settles, if it's something like Cruz #1 with Trump #2 and close and everyone else far, then we got a high chance of Trump. Of Course Trump winning Iowa makes it just about game over unless NH defects.

 

[Holmes]

The thing with the "people will start paying attention and support the establishment candidate" argument is, why would they do that? If they start paying attention, they'll see Trump ahead in the polls by 10%+ leads, and they'll think to themselves "why support some stupid loser when this guy is well ahead and will win".

 

[B-Dubs]

This is a great post. This is exactly what is happening.

Here's what's going on right now.

1. Trump's voters are not going to abandon Trump because of what he says/does

2. We don't know if Trump's supporters are reliable voters

3. We do know response rates this early for primaries are shit, generally

4. We don't know if there are a lot of primary voters to come and no idea how they'll vote

5. This election has the potential to be crazy.

6. We don't know how many candidates will be around in January.


Honestly, it's kind of impossible to know what's truly going on. Primaries aren't this noticed this far out as this cycle with the GOP thanks to the Trump Clown Show. I know people who watched the GOP debates who never would have otherwise. Some of them are definitely not voting GOP, too.

I think Nate makes a very solid argument in his article. But I also agree he's waaaay too dismissive of him because this election has major WTF factor going on. Especially if we're witnessing the GOP national party's deconstruction.

Quite honestly, the only thing I'm sure of is that Trump's supporters are here to stay. But I have no idea how many non-Trump supporters are out there not really paying attention, yet.

So Snake is right. We just don't know what the hell is going on in the GOP race.




This is also true, of course. With each passing day that Trump basically stays the course, the odds of him winning go up. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could not have it 50% Trump vs 50% field or better for the Donald. There's just nothing that makes you think Donald is an underdog, let alone a big one.

But I wouldn't go nuts and give up much more than 50% right now. I think once Iowa settles, if it's something like Cruz #1 with Trump #2 and close and everyone else far, then we got a high chance of Trump. Of Course Trump winning Iowa makes it just about game over unless NH defects.

This is basically the perfect post on the issue.

We honestly have no idea what's going on right now because this is all madness that no one could hope to parse with any sort of accuracy. Whoever is right is more than likely just going to get lucky.

EDIT: Also, the quote you were looking for from me was one post up. Might want to get that edit in.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Trump's odds are unquestionably better now than they were 2 months ago. But he still has to contend with a narrowing of the field, and a high unfavorables rating. Even if he has the better ground game the establishment is against him.

Putting him at less than 50% seems right to me. But I think he's out of single digits for sure.

I think he has next to zero chance of winning the general election in any case.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think he has next to zero chance of winning the general election in any case.

Oh he's a dead man walking if he hits the general. He's pretty much guaranteed any candidate coming out of the GOP won't stand much of a chance, there's too much ammo to use against all of them as a result of Trump.

 

[Yellowtail]

 

[Manmademan]

Okay, now that I've put $30 on Trump on PredictIt, I'm curious to know who else on PoliGAF has put money on a candidate.

EDIT:

I bought 125 shares of Trump at 24 cents.

I think i might get into this. Trump is looking unstoppable at this point.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think i might get into this. Trump is looking unstoppable at this point.

I put like $70 on Trump to win the primary and bought enough Hillary shares to win it all back should he lose. So basically unless everything goes to shit, at worst I'm going to come out even.

 

[Yellowtail]

Damn PoliGAF is so bullish on Trump compared to OT.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Trump's odds are unquestionably better now than they were 2 months ago. But he still has to contend with a narrowing of the field, and a high unfavorables rating. Even if he has the better ground game the establishment is against him.

Putting him at less than 50% seems right to me. But I think he's out of single digits for sure.

I think he has next to zero chance of winning the general election in any case.

I don't think there's a single Republican candidate who has a chance of winning the general greater than 1% (which covers e.g. bodies in Clinton's car or the freshly risen corpse of zombie Lenin reforming the USSR and invading the United States in order to congratulate Sanders on his primary election success). The maths isn't there. They have to do a clean Florida-Ohio-Virginia sweep, plus one of Coloroda, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire, which implies a 6% swing on their 2012 performance in the context of worsening demographics and money problems.

 

[Manmademan]

Damn PoliGAF is so bullish on Trump compared to OT.

OT political threads are usually a mess of people who just started paying attention to politics a week ago.

 

[Basileus777]

I don't think there's a single Republican candidate who has a chance of winning the general greater than 1% (which covers e.g. bodies in Clinton's car or the freshly risen corpse of zombie Lenin reforming the USSR and invading the United States in order to congratulate Sanders on his primary election success). The maths isn't there. They have to do a clean Florida-Ohio-Virginia sweep, plus one of Coloroda, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire, which implies a 6% swing on their 2012 performance in the context of worsening demographics and money problems.

Even if the economy tumbles?

 

[Black Mamba]

The thing with the "people will start paying attention and support the establishment candidate" argument is, why would they do that? If they start paying attention, they'll see Trump ahead in the polls by 10%+ leads, and they'll think to themselves "why support some stupid loser when this guy is well ahead and will win".

If these people exist, at Nate makes a very good argument as to why there are a lot of voters out there that haven't paid attention yet, we don't know who these people are. What are their politics? What will they look for in a candidate?

Maybe they'll break the way you say. They'll see Trump ahead, figure he's their best shot, go with it. Maybe his name recognition will take him to victory. Or maybe these voters are more moderate and when seeing what he says, go against him?

Honestly, I don't know. I have no clue who those people are and how they'll vote. I think it would be foolish to just assume they'll break one way because we don't really have much data on them except that they decide their vote very late in the process. And it's why so much voting is off for these earlier primaries.

Now, I want to make it clear. In no ways am I arguing that when these people pay attention, they'll go somewhere else. Anyone making that argument is bullshitting. Nobody knows what they'll do! Maybe they're just like general election swing voters, aka morons.

This is basically the perfect post on the issue.

We honestly have no idea what's going on right now because this is all madness that no one could hope to parse with any sort of accuracy. Whoever is right is more than likely just going to get lucky.

EDIT: Also, the quote you were looking for from me was one post up. Might want to get that edit in

Thanks for the heads up.

And yeah, whoever is "right" will just be lucky. I wonder if Trump were to lose but just barely lose if Nate Silver will trumpet about it or will he concede his early analysis was wrong as Trump nearly did win.

Nate incorrectly backtracked on his Germany-Brazil match in the World Cup which makes me think that he can process numbers but often times doesn't understand their meaning.

 

[B-Dubs]

Thanks for the heads up.

And yeah, whoever is "right" will just be lucky. I wonder if Trump were to lose but just barely lose if Nate Silver will trumpet about it or will he concede his early analysis was wrong as Trump nearly did win.

Nate incorrectly backtracked on his Germany-Brazil match in the World Cup which makes me think that he can process numbers but often times doesn't understand their meaning.

Who can tell with these things? He might admit it was closer than he thought it would be, but by that point he'll likely be using his model and we can all stop having this discussion.

I don't fault him on the World Cup thing, mostly because no one's figured out how to math soccer yet and I don't think it's going to happen for a long time. There's just not enough data from a given game for it to be done easily, whatever model is eventually created to do it is going to have to be hilariously complicated.

EDIT: Also, I haven't forgotten about your PM but picking out the best pizza place is like picking your favorite child. I'm thinking of just sending a list over and saying have at it.

 

[NeoXChaos]

No duh none of us really know what is going to happen. That is exactly why the Poligaf game we are playing exist.

Its probable that heading into January Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio are your final four. I doubt the next debate changes anything due to being a week from Christmas which will be forgettable within a week and then new years happen a week later.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I definitely agree this primary is too chaotic to predict. I mean if you've got James Carville throwing his hands up you know things aren't normal. History is on Silver's side, so I get why he would argue that but at the same time he should see how historically different this primary is already. I have total faith in his general election model, but his role in the primaries is less useful I think.

I'm also curious about this voter block that is currently oblivious to everything going on in the primary but are still likely to vote in the primary. Is this a group that actually exists? I can understand it for the general election, but you'd have to be somewhat politically motivated to want to vote in the primary.

I think i might get into this. Trump is looking unstoppable at this point.

I put like $70 on Trump to win the primary and bought enough Hillary shares to win it all back should he lose. So basically unless everything goes to shit, at worst I'm going to come out even.

I put $100 on Trump the other day, haha. If he can get through this Nazi phase without any damage I don't see what will stop him.

 

[Black Mamba]

Who can tell with these things? He might admit it was closer than he thought it would be, but by that point he'll likely be using his model and we can all stop having this discussion.

I don't fault him on the World Cup thing, mostly because no one's figured out how to math soccer yet and I don't think it's going to happen for a long time. There's just not enough data from a given game for it to be done easily, whatever model is eventually created to do it is going to have to be hilariously complicated.

EDIT: Also, I haven't forgotten about your PM but picking out the best pizza place is like picking your favorite child. I'm thinking of just sending a list over and saying have at it.

My problem is his analysis after the match where he said his model was wrong. Maybe it was but that's impossible to tell because the outcome went the other way. Outliers exist in any model! Even if his model was 100% accurate, Germany should still beat Brazil by a really lopsided score randomly. Just like the lowly Toronto Raptors of the time beat the 72-10 Bulls. Would he have retroactively said his model shouldn't have favored the Bulls in that single game? Of course not. But that's what he did here. That's what pissed me off the most.

I would have been fine if he said "maybe we need to reevaluate our model to make sure this wasn't a failure of the model instead of just an outlier," but he didn't. He threw it under the bus!

Don't worry about the PM. Still not gonna be there for a month (hey exactly) and I only have like 60% of the trip planned out! Also, I am NOT waiting 2 hours for a pie. I don't mind calling it in and picking it up but like hell if I'm standing in line for 2 hours, so keep that in mind.