D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Least wrong of all the major predictors, though, making him the most accurate three presidential elections running.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Least wrong of all the major predictors, though, making him the most accurate three presidential elections running.
Based on what? The guy from DKE claims otherwise.Least wrong of all the major predictors, though, making him the most accurate three presidential elections running.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Based on what? The guy from DKE claims otherwise.
Standard error on state-by-state predictions, which I think is probably the best metric. DKE guy used a certainty measure, IIRC, which I think is probably unjustified for a single event.
So my stupid dad keeps bringing up how the stock market has gone up since Trump got elected. I haven't heard much about that, so whats the deal with that?
The rich invest in wall street. Businesses are on the stock market. Trump and his cabinet are pro-business, anti-tax, and anti-worker's rights. Businesses pay lesser taxes. Their value and profits go up. The stock market booms. More rich people get rich.
Least wrong of all the major predictors, though, making him the most accurate three presidential elections running.
Professor guy still has his untarnished record, and Halloween masks, the most accurate predictor of all.
shinra-bansho
Member
Cohn and co actually correctly outlined Trump's path to victory. Where both he and Clinton had the most to lose. Even though their poll based forecast model showed her winning more.
Silver's model fluctuated wildly, was moving towards her in chances as we headed into the election and still gave the wrong prediction. And he didn't explain Trump's path. Just uncertainty and trendss. And bad punditry. I don't think there's anything to show it was actually a volatile race. Just bad sampling weighting Lv models.
Keys guy wins. Because his keys are just judgement calls.
Silver's model fluctuated wildly, was moving towards her in chances as we headed into the election and still gave the wrong prediction. And he didn't explain Trump's path. Just uncertainty and trendss. And bad punditry. I don't think there's anything to show it was actually a volatile race. Just bad sampling weighting Lv models.
Keys guy wins. Because his keys are just judgement calls.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Professor guy still has his untarnished record, and Halloween masks, the most accurate predictor of all.
Professor guy doesn't. In 2000 he predicted Kerry, then claimed his model was correct because it only predicted the popular vote winner; then in 2016 he predicted Trump and still claimed he was correct despite Trump not winning the popular vote. Also, he doesn't make state predictions so isn't relevant to our discussion.
Halloween masks are of course infallible.
If you want a fun statistical correlation, the winner of British parliamentary elections for every single election since the second world war could be predicted by the colour of the shirt worn by the Premier League winning team that year - blue for Conservatives, red for Labour. Good old correlation =/= causation!
Aaron Strife
Banned
Meh 2000 is a bit of an anomaly. Had they let the FL recount through Gore would have won.Professor guy doesn't. In 2000 he predicted Kerry, then claimed his model was correct because it only predicted the popular vote winner; then in 2016 he predicted Trump and still claimed he was correct despite Trump not winning the popular vote. Also, he doesn't make state predictions so isn't relevant to our discussion.
Halloween masks are of course infallible.
If you want a fun statistical correlation, the winner of British parliamentary elections for every single election since the second world war could be predicted by the colour of the shirt worn by the Premier League winning team that year - blue for Conservatives, red for Labour. Good old correlation =/= causation!
There's no key for SCOTUS putting its thumb on the scales.
Trump wants to hand corporate America a sweet tax deal but it doesn't look like CEOs will share the wealthSo my stupid dad keeps bringing up how the stock market has gone up since Trump got elected. I haven't heard much about that, so whats the deal with that?
Part of it is because they expect regulations to loosen and thus boost their big corporation profits. And also because they expect to be able to bring their overseas profits home tax-free or with extremely low taxes under a Trump presidency.In the wake of Trump's election to President of the United States the stock market has rallied to all-time highs. While some think this is a signal Trump will be great for corporate America, this rush to buybacks tells us a different story.
Buybacks are generally used as a way to invest cash when the economy is uncertain. CEOs don't want to invest in say, a new factory, if they think the economy is about to slow down. They also don't want to just sit on cash and watch inflation erode its value, so they turn to buybacks.
The fact that Goldman says companies are about to spend a ton of money that way next year tells us that they're worried about economic growth and profits.
And they have plenty of reason to worry too. Earnings have been on the decline for years, and next year's outlook isn't much better. Plus, borrowing costs are going up, not just because the Federal Reserve will likely raise interest rates, but also because markets are anticipating that Trump will throw money at a stimulus package, resulting in inflation. His tough stance on trade is also inflationary, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank.
See, one thing is giving corporate America a tax break and saying "have at it." Another thing is creating an economic environment where corporations feel secure enough to invest. Obviously the idea of a Trump presidency, though it has boosted stocks in the extremely near-term, isn't making companies feel secure into 2017.
However, the idea that these companies will invest in the US...that's looking unlikely. It means even though the stock market is booming, it's only booming for the rich.
Abinash117
Member
Trump wants to hand corporate America a sweet tax deal but it doesn't look like CEOs will share the wealth
Part of it is because they expect regulations to loosen and thus boost their big corporation profits. And also because they expect to be able to bring their overseas profits home tax-free or with extremely low taxes under a Trump presidency.
However, the idea that these companies will invest in the US...that's looking unlikely. It means even though the stock market is booming, it's only booming for the rich.
I don't get Republicans relying on factors outside of their control dictating the economy. It just thinking that corporations are inherently good or will do good just because, or maybe Republicans are actually terrible at economics.
shinra-bansho
Member
So, in addition to Wilbur Ross and Betsy DeVos, how many more billionaires is man of the people Donald Trump going to pick for his cabinet.
So, in addition to Wilbur Ross and Betsy DeVos, how many more billionaires is man of the people Donald Trump going to pick for his cabinet.
How better to make this crooked system better for the working man than the crooks?
nature boy
Member
Mark Cuban was "caught" chatting with Bannon, so maybe...
So, in addition to Wilbur Ross and Betsy DeVos, how many more billionaires is man of the people Donald Trump going to pick for his cabinet.
Maybe we can get Y2Kev into the cabinet.
So my stupid dad keeps bringing up how the stock market has gone up since Trump got elected. I haven't heard much about that, so whats the deal with that?
Short term hope that a Trump presidency will lower taxes for companies and help investor's bottom line. It won't last long.
Once other realities about the Trump presidency start settling in, like hostility to trade, more debt, less economic growth and an overall instability in the country.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23...tion-gives-platform-to-his-anonymous-critics/
Hrm, this looks kinda gross.
Hrm, this looks kinda gross.
Poodlestrike
Banned
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23...tion-gives-platform-to-his-anonymous-critics/
Hrm, this looks kinda gross.
Well, it's an Intercept article. Everything they do is at least a little gross.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23...tion-gives-platform-to-his-anonymous-critics/
Hrm, this looks kinda gross.
I'm really not a fan Haberman. Completely aside of her appearing to be biased against Clinton, she has a habit of being fairly reckless with her reporting. And then there's this.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/23...tion-gives-platform-to-his-anonymous-critics/
Hrm, this looks kinda gross.
Take one thing that feels bad, link it to another thing that you want people to feel angry about, get one clickbait article where people can feel good about their preconceived notions.
Here's one thing that's true, plenty of people thought Trump was a joke. And he still is.
TestOfTide
Banned
I am getting sick of purists in OT who think blue dogs are a bad idea.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
Tell him that the stock market has gone up 300% since Obama became President.So my stupid dad keeps bringing up how the stock market has gone up since Trump got elected. I haven't heard much about that, so whats the deal with that?
I am getting sick of purists in OT who think blue dogs are a bad idea.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
They think they're still running a presidential election.
I have not seen any actual proof of anything damning against Dean. Im not even that invested in him other than he seems like a proven choice. The purists scare me because they will run true believers in purple states and lose.I am getting sick of purists in OT who think blue dogs are a bad idea.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
metalslimer
Member
It seems like people don't understand that the Republican gains for the most part have come from conservative areas rejecting democrats completely. You can't have the same effect with some ultra liberal candidates because the voters you are targeting aren't liberal.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
It seems like people don't understand that the Republican gains for the most part have come from conservative areas rejecting democrats completely. You can't have the same effect with some ultra liberal candidates because the voters you are targeting aren't liberal.
The second problem is there are probably aren't even progressives to run there.
GoldenEye 007
Member
It is frustrating. It's like they don't understand the reality of the national electorate... We all know how that goes...I am getting sick of purists in OT who think blue dogs are a bad idea.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
I have not seen any actual proof of anything damning against Dean. Im not even that invested in him other than he seems like a proven choice. The purists scare me because they will run true believers in purple states and lose.
Like pretty much every candidate Bernie supported this year. THAT'S the gag. The "True Progressives (TM)" strategy was already tried. Didn't work.
nature boy
Member
Is Rahm Emanuel a bad idea for the DNC? It's not like he's doing anything in Chicago. He did a good job at the DCCC.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
Is Rahm Emanuel a bad idea for the DNC? It's not like he's doing anything in Chicago. He did a good job at the DCCC.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
Does anyone even like Emanuel other than you?
TestOfTide
Banned
Is Rahm Emanuel a bad idea for the DNC? It's not like he's doing anything in Chicago. He did a good job at the DCCC.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
My only problem with Emanuel would be that based on how he told Obama to not still push for the ACA, he seems like someone who might be good at flipping red to blue, but absolutely sucks at knowing what to do to then keep things blue.
After the last dnc "scandal" do the really want to bring in more "corruption" from a "Chicago politics" guy?Is Rahm Emanuel a bad idea for the DNC? It's not like he's doing anything in Chicago. He did a good job at the DCCC.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
whether any of these terms are earned is besides the point.
I am getting sick of purists in OT who think blue dogs are a bad idea.
You can't fucking win red districts without blue dogs unless you get some REALLY lucky turnout numbers.
But no, democrats should totally abandon a 50 state strategy because blue dogs aren't "progressive" enough.
And oh no, Howard Dean has some connections so we should totally just hire another part-time DNC chairman with no experience instead.
what did Obama get done with the blue dogs before 2010?
Rahm Emanuel is finished in national politics.Is Rahm Emanuel a bad idea for the DNC? It's not like he's doing anything in Chicago. He did a good job at the DCCC.
That's how I feel about Ellison: I'm bringing up Emanuel.
It seems like people don't understand that the Republican gains for the most part have come from conservative areas rejecting democrats completely. You can't have the same effect with some ultra liberal candidates because the voters you are targeting aren't liberal.
A lot of those conservative regions were ex-urban or rural. Some typically conservative counties like Orange County in CA flipped to democrats by a big margin/
nature boy
Member
Oh well lol I guess it's Perez or Dean. Yeah the Bernie faction would riot with Emanuel, just thought he could a get-things-done guy, but it would be hard to see him gaining full support.
Anyone but Ellison or Granholm, please.
Anyone but Ellison or Granholm, please.
like let's be clear here, the republicans are going to take this country and shift it far-the-fuck-right. what is going to be considered "center" is going to be pretty fucking different in four years than it is now. economically and socially.
are you sure you want to push through democrats who would consider themselves conservative in 2018 and 2020?
are you sure you want to push through democrats who would consider themselves conservative in 2018 and 2020?
Would Obama even consider taking the part of the DNC chair?
He was a community organizer, seems like a perfect fit, with far more flexible hours and still keeps him directly involved.
I think he would be more useful in giving voice to agendas that matter rather than spending most of his time doing administrative and strategical organizational work and I believe Obama himself thinks the same way.
like let's be clear here, the republicans are going to take this country and shift it far-the-fuck-right. what is going to be considered "center" is going to be pretty fucking different in four years than it is now. economically and socially.
are you sure you want to push through democrats who would consider themselves conservative in 2018 and 2020?
No, the country is not going to be shifted to the "far-the-fuck-right", whatever that means.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I think he would be more useful in giving voice to agendas that matter rather than spending most of his time doing administrative and strategical organizational work and I believe Obama himself thinks the same way.
Does anyone know what the DNC actually does, like broken down in time % wise?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If they're winning seats that are held by the GOP and wouldn't be won by a more progressive candidate? Yes! If they vote in line with even 10% of more progressive initiatives and they keep the GOP out of control its a windo you really want to elect a bunch of conservative democrats who'll say "all lives DO matter, but especially blue"?
Does anyone know what the DNC actually does, like broken down in time % wise?
96% fund raising and the rest of the time working out the primary schedule (I'm only half joking).
do you really want to elect a bunch of conservative democrats who'll say "all lives DO matter, but especially blue"?
Contrary to post-Trump popular belief, most politicians don't campaign like an demagogue.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
96% fund raising and the rest of the time working out the primary schedule (I'm only half joking).
I would think the DNC chair is what the person makes of it, just like a CEO.
I would think the DNC chair is what the person makes of it, just like a CEO.
That's definitely true, I guess if people want a figurehead we'll just put a figurehead.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.