Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Blue Waves and Red Waves

  1. #71
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,106
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    The amount of people willing to come out and vote. The Dems are fired up, for better or worse, and are coming out for the special elections. The Repubs aren't nearly as much. The primaries and special elections are outliers and can't be used to gauge turnout for the mid-term with any degree of certainty. For all we know, the lack of interest by Repubs in an election on a normal work day will not reflect at all on their turnout when their employers let them off to vote on the designated voting day.
    We shall see. Voter turnout in midterms is historically lower than in presidential years. Special elections and primaries are all over the map, as far as I can tell. Indeed, voter turn-out in special elections and primaries this year appears to be at historically high levels. And yes, the left is extremely motivated and energized. I predict a significant blue wave in November. We'll have to wait a couple months to see if I'm right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Oh horse hockey. Every poll is slanted. We saw just how bad polls really are in 2016. I really TBH don't care what polls say. It's a joke.

    Attachment 29942

    According to 538:

    Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


    Crazy and not-so-crazy scenarios
    Here are the chances we’ll see these election outcomes.

    Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College
    10.5%

    © Copyright Original Source

    And you are making the same mistake Sparko repeatedly made, and I couldn't get him to see it. There is a difference between polling, and predicting outcomes based on polling. The vast majority of the polls in 2016 were actually pretty good. A smaller number of states were outside the margins of error for number of votes cast for which candidate. So if the poll predicts "57% will vote for Clinton and 39% will vote for Trump with a 2% margin of error, the poll is accurate if the votes from Trump are between 55% and 59% and for Clinton between 37% and 41%. It is wrong if and only if the actual vote falls outside that margin. Most polls were well within their margin of error. A few key states were not.

    Pundits can then take these state-by-state polls and derive an overall probability of a win by either candidate. That is not a poll. The prediction you cite gives Clinton a 71.4% probability of a win and Trump a 28.6% probability. That's pretty close to the probability of flipping a coin twice and getting at least one tail (75%) or getting both heads (25%). If you then actually flip the coin and it comes up heads twice, no one with an understanding of probability would say, "oops...that probability calculation must have been wrong!" The fact is, two heads has a 25% probability. It CAN and WILL happen if you flip the coins often enough. It can happen on the first flip. The probability is basically saying, "if you flip these coins thousands of times, you can expect 75% will have at least one tail and 25% will be two heads." Likewise, if we ran the election thousands of times, the probability says Clinton would win 71% of the time and Trump 29% of the time. We only ran the election once - Trump winning was not "impossible" so the probability was not "wrong." It just means Trump hit on his 29%. Likewise, someone who wins the lottery despite having a 1 in 175M probability does not mean they proved the probability is wrong. They were just lucky enough to win that 1 in 175M chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'm talking about his first 6 months.

    Nope. Just picking when the Anti-Trump hysteria really took off, after the stupid marches on Washington by the pink hatted morons.
    So first, I suspect most people reading "since Trump took office" would interpret that to mean "inauguration day." I'd be curious to hear others weigh in on that. If you mean "beginning with his sixth month," you might want to say that. And the "hysteria" about Trump began the night he won the election, and has continued pretty much since, though much of what Trump does has now indeed become the "new normal," (unfortunately) so the "hysteria" has abated somewhat and become more purposeful action on the parts of many. Finally, Trump's numbers began tanking the day he took office and stopped tanking mid December - so a full 11 months later. They then recovered somewhat between mid-December and early May, and have been essentially flat since then. And they are actually DOWN in all 50 states from the day he took office.

    And I have to admit I am glad to see you referring to the women marchers as "pink hatted morons." That's pretty much the same mistake the left made with "basket of deplorables" and writing off an entire segment of our country as unimportant. Trump is doing the same thing. I suspect he will see the same results: people ignored (or insulted) tend to eventually get fed up and take action. We saw it in 2016 after years of that kind of left-arrogance. I suspect it will happen a LOT faster in the face of what has now become right-arrogance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    How so? Do you have evidence that they have a roll of who they call and their political affiliation?
    I don't need to know who they call and what they ask. I need only look at the outcome of the polls themselves. Most polls are within a few percentage points of the aggregator most of the time, but oscillate around it and occasionally have an outlier. That is what you would expect to see for randomly conducted polls. Rasmussen is consistently 6-10 points right of the aggregation. Random sampling will not produce that result: always significantly different from the mean, and always to the same political side. So I don't discount their data, but I do not look at it separated from the mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    And interestingly enough, the "left swinging" ones are rated as better on the aggregators, aren't they?
    For that reason, I use two aggregators and I look into their methodology and which polls they include and exclude from their aggregation. I see no evidence that RCP or 538 are "left-leaning" or "right-leaning." If you have some, I'd be happy to look at the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Uh, yes you did.

    Source: Carp Post 54


    Trump had signed 77 Executive Orders by the end of July. He had been in office 1.5 years by then, so that's an average of about 51/year. Obama's average for his entire 8 year presidency was 35/year (note that this site places Trump's average at 54/year, not 51, so he has apparently signed more of them in August).

    So who exactly is EOing their way into getting their way?

    © Copyright Original Source

    You are reading this in a way I did not intend, but I will accept responsibility for using language in a sloppy fashion. My focus was on "getting their own way." IMO, ANY EO is issued because the president wants things a certain way - so "getting their own way." Trump is issuing more than Obama, so the case can be made that he is trying to "get his own way" at a faster pace and (more often) than Obama. That does not equate to "presidential power." Clearly (and obviously) EOs can have different weight (as I noted in my previous post).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I never said he did. In fact, he probably has a HIGHER rate of important ones because he has had to unravel the garbage Obama EO'd in the first place.
    OK - so your argument is that Trump is issuing EOs at a FASTER rate than Obama, and probably issuing MORE EOs that exercise high executive power than Obama, but Obama is still the king of "issuing EOs to get his own way" and "issuing EOs with high executive power." Really?

    And where is the data that all of the EOs with "significant executive power" were simple reversals of Obama EOs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I never said Trump had less. What I am claiming is that Obama had more that unapologetically circumvented Congress.

    Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311608-obamas-curtain-call-a-look-back-on-a-legacy-of

    As a candidate, President Obama expressed misgivings about executive power. After the 2010 mid-term elections, however, it became clear that Congress would not go along with the president’s sweeping regulatory agenda. So he pledged: “Where they won’t act, I will.”
    He vowed to pursue “audacious” executive action in his final term. And in his January 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama promised to “wherever and whenever” possible “take steps without legislation.”
    President Obama made good on these promises; his use of Executive Orders, Executive Agreements, Agency Guidance, and Agency Rulemaking unilaterally to change domestic policy is unparalleled in modern times. Indeed, according to “The New York Times,” President Obama’s two terms have been characterized by “bureaucratic bulldozing, rather than legislative transparency.”

    © Copyright Original Source

    OK, I think I'm going to disconnect at this point. You never said Trump had less; you just said Obama had more? Bill, how can "Obama have more" NOT mean "Trump has less?" And your article talks about Obama's about-face on EOs and Executive Power, which pretty much everyone knows he did. Most people also know he did it because there were problems that needed solving and Congress was doing (and is doing) nothing. He was clear that he would have welcomed a Congressional solution, but was going to take action in the absence of one. Trump, as I recall, has taken essentially the same position several times. In any event, it says nothing about comparing the track record of the two men with respect to this issue.

    Bill, this conversation is jumping the rails badly. Frankly, it's not making much sense to me at this point. You keep linking articles that do not support your arguments, and make contradictory statements. I don't see what is to be gained by continuing. My previous exchanges with you strongly suggest that you are very far out there on the right, and impervious to any suggestion that some of your positions could use some re-examination. So..I'll leave the last word to you, unless you ask me something I have not previously answered.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-15-2018 at 06:31 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  2. #72
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,106
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    786
    This is the kind misuse of data we see all the time out of this administration. I can accept that Sanders simply made a mistake. But even the data itself is skewed. They begin counting job growth from election day. It's hard to make the case that the president has any significant contribution to the economy and job growth in their first few weeks/months of office, but here they actually add the two months BEFORE taking office, when the president-elect cannot set policy (unless they are the incumbent), to skew the numbers. So Obama's first term is weighed down by a recession that was well under way before he took office, and Trump gets the benefit of the job growth in the last two months of Obama's term.

    Really...?
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-15-2018 at 08:25 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  3. #73
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,841
    Amen (Given)
    3695
    Amen (Received)
    18606
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    This is the kind misuse of data we see all the time out of this administration. I can accept that Sanders simply made a mistake. But even the data itself is skewed. They begin counting job growth from election day. It's hard to make the case that the president has any significant contribution to the economy and job growth in their first few weeks/months of office, but here they actually add the two months BEFORE taking office, when the president-elect cannot set policy (unless they are the incumbent), to skew the numbers. So Obama's first term is weighed down by a recession that was well under way before he took office, and Trump gets the benefit of the job growth in the last two months of Obama's term.

    Really...?
    1. She apologized and corrected her error.
    2. Trump DID start creating jobs from election day. Remember Carrier?

    Really.

  4. #74
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,106
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    1. She apologized and corrected her error.
    She apologized, and partially corrected her error. The rest of the error was intrinsic to the data she cited, for which she did not apologize or own having used bad data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    2. Trump DID start creating jobs from election day. Remember Carrier?

    Really.
    Sparko, Carrier was 1,000 jobs and a PR gimmick. Even at that time, it was clear that no president could sustain necessary job growth with one-off, small hit things like that. To be healthy, our economy needs to grow by 150K+ jobs per month. That equates to 5,000 jobs per day. That means the equivalent of 5 "Carrier's" per day every day of the week. Carrier was nothing. And it was especially nothing because it didn't happen. Carrier had five production lines on the day of that announcement at that facility. They now have three. Trump is a master of the media, and he knows how to get news cycles. Follow-through on actual change...? Significantly less so.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  5. #75
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,841
    Amen (Given)
    3695
    Amen (Received)
    18606
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    She apologized, and partially corrected her error. The rest of the error was intrinsic to the data she cited, for which she did not apologize or own having used bad data.



    Sparko, Carrier was 1,000 jobs and a PR gimmick. Even at that time, it was clear that no president could sustain necessary job growth with one-off, small hit things like that. To be healthy, our economy needs to grow by 150K+ jobs per month. That equates to 5,000 jobs per day. That means the equivalent of 5 "Carrier's" per day every day of the week. Carrier was nothing. And it was especially nothing because it didn't happen. Carrier had five production lines on the day of that announcement at that facility. They now have three. Trump is a master of the media, and he knows how to get news cycles. Follow-through on actual change...? Significantly less so.
    He didn't stop with Carrier, he started with Carrier. He was working with companies from before his inauguration. That is why they used that time period. You can dispute the results or call it a PR Stunt if you want, but your initial objection was him using a time period that included before he took office. He is justified in doing so.
    Last edited by Sparko; 08-17-2018 at 01:13 PM.

  6. #76
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,106
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    He didn't stop with Carrier, he started with Carrier. He was working with companies from before his inauguration. That is why they used that time period. You can dispute the results or call it a PR Stunt if you want, but your initial objection was him using a time period that included before he took office. He is justified in doing so.
    No, he's not. The VAST majority of job growth in those periods had nothing whatsoever to do with his PR stunts. As noted, even if he managed a "Carrier" per day every day of the week (which he didn't), he could have taken credit for less than 20% of the 172K (November) and 180K (December) and (259K) January job growth numbers. Heck, 25% of November was BEFORE he was elected. And it's especially bad since the the "Carrier" thing (and the majority of the others he claimed) either didn't actually happen, or were already planned and in the works long before Trump was elected. And you cannot claim that they only planned those things because they knew Trump was going to be president, because most people thought Clinton was going to be president, remember?

    Seriously, Sparko, you can't really be defending such a horrendous "credit grab?" I know Trump likes to take credit for things other people did, but this is pretty ridiculous. It smacks of desperation.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  7. #77
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    39,841
    Amen (Given)
    3695
    Amen (Received)
    18606
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No, he's not. The VAST majority of job growth in those periods had nothing whatsoever to do with his PR stunts. As noted, even if he managed a "Carrier" per day every day of the week (which he didn't), he could have taken credit for less than 20% of the 172K (November) and 180K (December) and (259K) January job growth numbers. Heck, 25% of November was BEFORE he was elected. And it's especially bad since the the "Carrier" thing (and the majority of the others he claimed) either didn't actually happen, or were already planned and in the works long before Trump was elected. And you cannot claim that they only planned those things because they knew Trump was going to be president, because most people thought Clinton was going to be president, remember?

    Seriously, Sparko, you can't really be defending such a horrendous "credit grab?" I know Trump likes to take credit for things other people did, but this is pretty ridiculous. It smacks of desperation.
    You can believe what you want to, Carp. I will stick with what actually happened. Trump hit the ground running and created and saved jobs before he even took office.

  8. #78
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,106
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You can believe what you want to, Carp. I will stick with what actually happened. Trump hit the ground running and created and saved jobs before he even took office.
    Actually, my friend, I AM talking about what actually happened. His "hitting the ground" was mostly (all?) PR. Much of it was taking credit for what was already underway (the CEOs said as much). Much of the rest never actually happened (e.g., Carrier). What remains was so small as to be essentially a non-factor. Except for one thing: it conned a lot of his "base" into believing he was actually doing something of substance - a "get your hands dirty" president. He wasn't. He was a PR hack and credit-grabber. It's his shtick.

    But somehow, I doubt you're going to actually believe that, so I'll leave you to it.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •