I think if Trump wins he's going to pull some Brewster's Millions shit and pull out saying he never wanted to run and he had to the fulfill some weird contract.
Twist: Cameras were filming him behind the scenes every step of the way and it starts on Fox the following week. It's called 'The Hopeful', 'From Jack to a King' or 'Lol jokes on them I was only pretending'. Format gets sold around the world and joke candidates start to get fielded in Leadership contests around the world.
You think a narcissist would turn away on the most powerful office of the known universe? 'I was born for this', is all that would be on his mind as soon as he sets foot in the White House
(and immediately asks directions to the nukes-room).
Personally, i have no idea how big his chance to win this really is, but he has come far too close already. Also, i think a lot more people will vote for him than those that are vocal about it.
I can't even imagine a world where Trump would be president. It's so fucking surreal.
I've been operating under the assumption that he will win since Brexit. All over the world, right-wing politics is under-represented in polls. I think there are quite a few shy Trump voters, and with how boring (aka level-headed and competent) Hillary is to her base, I think he'll be able to snatch it.
About half the people in your local bar have correctly predicted the president since 1984. One of them may even be nicknamed, "Professor."
Actually I think that's sort of true, however the sort of person smart enough to hide support of a racist is also likely the sort of person who doesn't want to see his 401k tank in November and will just hold his nose and vote Hillary, perhaps even inverting the pretense for his republican buddies.
It happened in the 2015 UK election. The British Conservative Party unexpectedly won a majority when the polls were saying it was going to be a hung parliament. The stigma of being a Trump voter is surely even worse.
I was listening to kcrw. They were talking about people that have already made up their mind about trump, but don't want to be seen as supporting him. So they lie on polls... I wish it was bullshit.. but cowardice knows no lows.
I see too many comment sections where people using their facebooks with their faces, and government names saying the most foul shit. They do an anonymous poll and suddenly they are shy?
I was listening to kcrw. They were talking about people that have already made up their mind about trump, but don't want to be seen as supporting him. So they lie on polls... I wish it was bullshit.. but cowardice knows no lows.
Just to replay here:
- People pointed out that most of the races he is being given credit for were easy to predict with or without a model, especially with 1984 as a cutpoint because of what a landslide the election was.
- You made a snippy remark because you thought GAF posters were young and shouldn't be talking shit about 1984. It was a cheap gotcha.
- Someone who isn't young responded to you to say your assumption was wrong.
- Rather than saying "Sure, us old fogies were around then, but most of these kids are barely old enough to vote today and are just using what they know now to assume it was easy back then", you went with "No, I'm pretty sure you didn't pay attention to politics in 1984"--I guess as another attempt at a cheap gotcha.
- You ended up being wrong again.
No one's calling you a piece of shit, you just called people out and it backfired!
I see too many comment sections where people using their facebooks with their faces, and government names saying the most foul shit. They do an anonymous poll and suddenly they are shy?
Yeah there's them. But there's a % of people who aren't like that. Donald trump is running a tight race to be president, lol. Would such a thing be that absurd? I think it's that moderate problem a lot have spoken on In the past that's going to fuck us. I wish I could find the segment, but, it broke down between people overtly supporting him and those that agree but don't want to be seen as his base. Almost subconscious, But they'll ultimately code 66 us.
The debate was just that trumps numbers are probably a bit higher than they seem with some folks. And it's an easy thing to do, lie to a pollster.
I've been operating under the assumption that he will win since Brexit. All over the world, right-wing politics is under-represented in polls. I think there are quite a few shy Trump voters, and with how boring (aka level-headed and competent) Hillary is to her base, I think he'll be able to snatch it.
It's not just one isolated incident. It's also the 2015 UK general elections where the Conservatives won an outright majority, the 2015 elections in Israel where Netanyahu had a strong lead despite trailing in the polls, elections in Turkey, Austria and the rise of right-wing politics across Europe.
Even Trump's candidacy itself is a sign of the times - in previous years it would have been thought inconceivable that this kind of person would ever become a candidate for a major party in America.
Across the world, the combination of sluggish economic growth, rising inequality, terrorism and the echo-chamber fact-free world of social media is enabling demagogues, fascists, extremists and populists. Politicians that recognize that the world is complex and that solving problems is a gradual, collaborative effort are being dismissed as liars, "the establishment" or just boring.
Donald Trump realized (consciously or not) that the most valuable currency in our world is attention. If you can just get people's attention, then some of them are bound to agree with you. It's basic marketing, and it works on all of us all the time. And I believe it will make him president in November.
He just came on CNN and said that historically a generic republican would win this election but Donald Trump is so out of the ordinary he might break historical trends and lose
He just came on CNN and said that historically a generic republican would win this election but Donald Trump is so out of the ordinary he might break historical trends and lose
Well, i don't know about the quality of polling throughout Europe, but i can say that in a lot of european countries far right-wing parties stormed on the stage suprising everyone and anyone in the polling community.
Especially during their first rise, polling seems to be way way off. After that, it becomes more 'acceptable' to be supportive of these kinds of candidates and polling tends to be much more reflective in future elections after that.
I consider Trump to be the real 'first rise' of the far right on the american stage. Wether he wins or loses, i think there will be a pre-Trump and post-Trump reality of politics in america.
He just came on CNN and said that historically a generic republican would win this election but Donald Trump is so out of the ordinary he might break historical trends and lose
Actually I think that's sort of true, however the sort of person smart enough to hide support of a racist is also likely the sort of person who doesn't want to see his 401k tank in November and will just hold his nose and vote Hillary, perhaps even inverting the pretense for his republican buddies.
Wow he correctly predicted something he had a 50/50 chance to get right, a pig pushing one of two buttons with its snout and getting a treat in return could've done that had the pig lived long enough.
It's not just one isolated incident. It's also the 2015 UK general elections where the Conservatives won an outright majority, the 2015 elections in Israel where Netanyahu had a strong lead despite trailing in the polls, elections in Turkey, Austria and the rise of right-wing politics across Europe.
Even Trump's candidacy itself is a sign of the times - in previous years it would have been thought inconceivable that this kind of person would ever become a candidate for a major party in America.
Across the world, the combination of sluggish economic growth, rising inequality, terrorism and the echo-chamber fact-free world of social media is enabling demagogues, fascists, extremists and populists. Politicians that recognize that the world is complex and that solving problems is a gradual, collaborative effort are being dismissed as liars, "the establishment" or just boring.
Donald Trump realized (consciously or not) that the most valuable currency in our world is attention. If you can just people's attention, then some of them are bound to agree with you. It's basic marketing, and it works on all of us all the time. And I believe it will make him president in November.
Beating the polls in those places really shouldn't impress anyone. US presidential polls have a proven track record because they've been done for awhile and there are so many of them. With so many places working on it and so much research and study addressing it we have a much better handle on the situation. The secret shy voter thing has basically been a conservative and diablosing liberal meme for forever now. No reason to believe it's real, and bad polls in countries that always have bad polls doesn't lend any evidence to those voter's existence in the US.
Wow he correctly predicted something he had a 50/50 chance to get right, a pig pushing one of two buttons with its snout and getting a treat in return could've done that had the pig lived long enough.
Hmm, I don't know. In the final build-up, most (all?) polls had Brexit losing, and the gut feeling - while no-one knew for certain - was that it would too. And look what happened...
Also, last year's general election wasn't meant to be a Conservative white-wash, but by all accounts it was.
Well, i don't know about the quality of polling throughout Europe, but i can say that in a lot of european countries far right-wing parties stormed on the stage suprising everyone and anyone in the polling community.
Especially during their first rise, polling seems to be way way off. After that, it becomes more 'acceptable' to be supportive of these kinds of candidates and polling tends to be much more reflective in future elections after that..
FWIW, pollsters also tune their models in reaction to these off elections where they underestimated votes that carried a form of social stigma. It's not just people feeling emboldened.
If there continue to be more protests, shootings and riots, Trump will win. These events play right into his fear mongering. They don't realize that a Trump presidency will severely multiply all the events above. I too think Trump will win.
FWIW, pollsters also tune their models in reaction to these off elections where they underestimated votes that carried a form of social stigma. It's not just people feeling emboldened.
Hmm, I don't know. In the final build-up, most (all?) polls had Brexit losing, and the gut feeling - while no-one knew for certain - was that it would too. And look what happened...
Also, last year's general election wasn't meant to be a Conservative white-wash, but by all accounts it was.
Err no? The polls in Britain are a joke because there is a significant shy tory effect within the population, they are too polite to out themselves as having reprehensible views (not any longer though).
The polls also showed it was going to be super tight but when early voting began the cretin vote was already in the lead. I was never ever confident of remain winning, since the incidence of cretin is super high in this country, which leads me to my final point.
The UK is 87% white. The US is not. Therefore the percentage of the native population that don't school good is much higher within the general electorate.
The polls in the US have called the Presidential race correctly since 1952.
Well, i don't know about the quality of polling throughout Europe, but i can say that in a lot of european countries far right-wing parties stormed on the stage suprising everyone and anyone in the polling community.
Especially during their first rise, polling seems to be way way off. After that, it becomes more 'acceptable' to be supportive of these kinds of candidates and polling tends to be much more reflective in future elections after that.
I consider Trump to be the real 'first rise' of the far right on the american stage. Wether he wins or loses, i think there will be a pre-Trump and post-Trump reality of politics in america.
Hmm, I don't know. In the final build-up, most (all?) polls had Brexit losing, and the gut feeling - while no-one knew for certain - was that it would too. And look what happened...
Also, last year's general election wasn't meant to be a Conservative white-wash, but by all accounts it was.
The polling was bad. It's usually bad there. Even with that, it was still shown somewhat close. The idea polling showed a landslide for no isn't really correct.
I don't see it. I think it's safe to say that this debate has more hype behind it than any other presidential debate in recent memory. People are looking for takedowns on either side. Some want to see Hillary tripped up on stage, others want to see Trump proven to be a clown. Fortunately, as you said, the facts are on her side.
There is a risk that some will award Trump the winner of the debates just by showing up. Heck, people have already starting doing that before the debates have even begun. But by most objective measures, I'd be amazed if Trump out-facted Clinton or proven himself to have a more commanding grasp of the subjects at hand. Trump mostly stands to win if you judge the debates on a purely entertainment scale, or by weird dominance rituals.
Except you know, it's a well regarded academic using history to make predictions about the future and not an animal just doing whatever.
This thread has a lot of people calling out a historical model specifically because it is a historical model and not because they take issues with any part of it in particular. I think that's not a particularly good attitude.
Beating the polls in those places really shouldn't impress anyone. US presidential polls have a proven track record because they've been done for awhile and there are so many of them. With so many places working on it and so much research and study addressing it we have a much better handle on the situation. The secret shy voter thing has basically been a conservative and diablosing liberal meme for forever now. No reason to believe it's real, and bad polls in countries that always have bad polls doesn't lend any evidence to those voter's existence in the US.
I do think a worldwide rise of right-wing populism is an important fact to consider, especially considering that you can see the very same trend in America right now.
That's 9 elections. A 50/50 coinflip on average would call all 9 straight elections correctly 1 out of 512 times.
Assuming Americans predicted elections with coinflips, and between 1984 and 2016 there are an average of 300 million American citizens, that would mean there are 585,937 Americans who would have predicted 9 straight elections correctly, without any knowledge of the candidates, the straw polls, or any other factors to help give them an educated guess.
My point is, calling elections correctly 9 times isn't that impressive and their guess on who wins the next election should be still taken with a grain of salt.
I do think a worldwide rise of right-wing populism is an important fact to consider, especially considering that you can see the very same trend in America right now.
Even then, it's not overwhelmingly extraordinary to make eight correct predictions of binary choices, when some were pretty easy to predict like 1984 and 1996 and 2004, and one of them he was only correct on by a technicality (2000) and not in the resulting presidency. He doesn't even seem to have a scientific model, just 13 true/false questions, several of which are based off his own opinions.
Just to replay here:
- People pointed out that most of the races he is being given credit for were easy to predict with or without a model, especially with 1984 as a cutpoint because of what a landslide the election was.
- You made a snippy remark because you thought GAF posters were young and shouldn't be talking shit about 1984. It was a cheap gotcha.
- Someone who isn't young responded to you to say your assumption was wrong.
- Rather than saying "Sure, us old fogies were around then, but most of these kids are barely old enough to vote today and are just using what they know now to assume it was easy back then", you went with "No, I'm pretty sure you didn't pay attention to politics in 1984"--I guess as another attempt at a cheap gotcha.
- You ended up being wrong again.
No one's calling you a piece of shit, you just called people out and it backfired!
Even then, it's not overwhelmingly extraordinary to make eight correct choices of binary predictions, when some were pretty easy to predict like 1984 and 1996 and 2004, and one of them he was only correct on by a technicality (2000) and not in the resulting presidency.
You're misunderstanding how historical models work. It isn't only about the predictions he's making but also getting at the underlying trends and forces in the events themselves.
You're right he doesn't have a scientific model, he has a historical one. Which makes sense because he is a historian. I'm no fan of positivism I'll admit, but saying that a historical approach is wrong because it is historical and not scientific seems to be positivism taken to a comical extreme.
Caveat emptor, the way I understand it.
Dude basically says in that he doesn't trust his model to necessarily work as well this election. Or he's just hedging his bet.
If every American who was old enough to vote in 1984 predicted all elections from 1984 onwards by flipping a coin, there would be ~720,000 who would currently be on an election-winning streak. ~360,000 of them would continue their streak after this election, too. This does not mean we should trust any of their coins.
92 was close down the wire, but Clinton was the expected winner in the final month.
96 was a blowout.
00 was legit close, but you can claim "right" based on either EV or Popular, so it's unimpressive to claim a win there.
04 was again very close, but Bush looked good in the final weeks. It was the day of exit polls that threw everyone off.
08 and 12 were in no way close elections.
So? You were mostly right on a bunch of elections where there was a clear favorite headed to the ballot box? Which ones did you get wrong exactly in this collection?
People here really think Trump will win? Go play with an electoral college map. Even if he won both Ohio and Florida, he still wouldn't have enough. He has to magically turn a state like Pennsylvania or Michigan red in addition to the others.
Another Republican could have easily beaten Hillary, but he's so exceptionally awful that the trend of two terms of one party and then a switch to the other will be broken.
This is actually my biggest fear - that there are a substantial number of people that want to vote for Trump, but don't want to be seen publicly as a Trump supporter.
Honestly? It may be me being British, and having seen our polling noticeably underestimate conservative sentiment twice in two national polls in subsequent years (last year's general election and this year's EU referendum), but I do mentally add an extra 5% to Trump's poll ratings. The vitriol surrounding Trump does mean I firmly believe that there is a large number of shy elephants that the polls will not be able to measure.
You're misunderstanding how historical models work. It isn't only about the predictions he's making but also getting at the underlying trends and forces in the events themselves.
You're right he doesn't have a scientific model, he has a historical one. Which makes sense because he is a historian. I'm no fan of positivism I'll admit, but saying that a historical approach is wrong because it is historical and not scientific seems to be positivism taken to a comical extreme.
I'm not convinced either, but my issue is with his model in particular and not the fact that the model exists and is historical.
One thing that people in this thread are ignoring is that this model works for prior elections as well as the ones he has predicted.
These comments seem dangerously close to suggesting that History essentially has no predictive use.
No, I understand the usefulness of it and he's correct on some points. But as far as being a model that I substitute over scientific modeling to predict this election, I'm not yet ready to do so. This article as framing him as an solid indicator of this year's popular vote results when even the author admits that a candidate like Donald Trump is a stretch for his model. I admit it would be interesting to go back and apply the historical model to past elections to see how closely his questions line up, even if some of them can be answered subjectively.
I have to imagine every single day Mitt Romney wakes up and curses as badly as a Mormon can at whatever convinced him that Barack Obama was vulnerable in 2012. I can't say that he would have won this with a slam dunk because Trump is such a disruptive force, but he would have had at worst a 50/50 chance.
I've been operating under the assumption that he will win since Brexit. All over the world, right-wing politics is under-represented in polls. I think there are quite a few shy Trump voters, and with how boring (aka level-headed and competent) Hillary is to her base, I think he'll be able to snatch it.
We have a far, far better point of inference available than Brexit: The Republican primaries. Yes, we already have data on Trump from this presidential season, so there is no reason for tortured logic about how a referendum in the UK is the same as a presidential election in the US. By the way, the same theory about people being embarassed to vote for Trump and under-reporting was floated then. The result? Trump did not outperform his polls
I know we all like to say that the old rules don't apply to Trump, but this is data on Trump himself.
Speaking of the old rules, I would also point out that when Obama was running in 2008, we went through basically the same argument about the Bradley effect. Remember what happened then? There was no effect.
