patrick.net

YesYNot says

You clearly don't know what 71% chance of a win means. Also, why compare the president's approval with congress person's approval? Why not compare Republicans to Democrats in Congress to predict swings in Congress?

I know that 71% was dead wrong.

Also, I'm comparing Trump to the current heads of the DNC. Whatever you can say about Trump, his ratings are still higher than Pelosi, Schumer, and the DNC's approval rating as a whole.

The DNC's reputation is so bad, and the party has alienated so many moderates from its ranks (including myself) by adopting the platforms of BLM, the Muslim Brotherhood, and SJWs, that they actually are struggling to raise money as a party. As of June 2017, the party only had $7.5 million on hand in cash (compared to $44.7 million for the GOP). According to the DNC's most recent FEC filing, they are $3.3 million in the RED.

How do you think this bodes for the DNC in 2018, a party that has for the past 10 years outspent their GOP rivals by 3-4x to win elections, but are now losing elections (0 - 4 in 2017) despite record spending? Clinton's $1.2 billion presidential campaign is the most expensive in history, and Jon Ossof's House campaign was the most expensive for a House election in history. They both ended up LOSING.

You really need to get out of your echo chamber once in a while and look at how the tides are flowing, the DNC is not in great shape, and part of the reason is they've focused so much attention on trying to tear down Trump (unsuccessfully), that they've ignored fixing their own party platform which is now seen as a party of extremist and limousine coastal libtards. Not exactly a formula for success as we've seen over the past 8 years.

YesYNot says

The surprising thing is that Texas is hot as fuck. I'd hate to live there for that reason alone, but there are more.

When you're gainfully employed and making a 6 digit salary, it's easy to suffer through a hot Summer. Easier than being broke, behind on bills, and unemployed in California's more moderate weather.

I know that 71% was dead wrong.

-------------

How do you figure?

What was the correct odds?

errc says

How do you figure?

What was the correct odds?

0%

Goran_K says

errc says

How do you figure?

What was the correct odds?

0%

You misunderstood the question. I didn't ask for your understanding of prediction markets, and forecasting odds.

I asked what were the correct odds?

If you felt there was %100 certainty, you should have been backing up the truck, especially when gambling markets were reflective of a 70%+ favorite

errc says

I asked what were the correct odds?

0%

Goran_K says

errc says

I asked what were the correct odds?

0%

How did you arrive at this number?

errc says

How did you arrive at this number?

Goran_K says

0%

Out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for this?

edit: never mind. I see that you already answered. Do you think that elections are decided by land area?

YesYNot says

Do you think that elections are decided by land area?

No, the United States elects presidents using the electoral college and has done so since the formation of the country.

@Goran

How much did you wager on Trump? His gambling odds reflected ~ 30% chance of winning, and you had it at 100%

That's an all in play for any Capitalist Investor.

YesYNot says

and how much is related to policy that could be replicated elsewhere without oil, gas

Given how low oil prices are right now, I would think that the Texas numbers would be even better if oil were not so reasonably priced right now.

errc says

How much did you wager on Trump? His gambling odds reflected ~ 30% chance of winning, and you had it at 100%

That's an all in play for any Capitalist Investor.

I don't disclose my earnings from any venture. Just not classy.

Goran_K says

errc says

How much did you wager on Trump? His gambling odds reflected ~ 30% chance of winning, and you had it at 100%

That's an all in play for any Capitalist Investor.

I don't disclose my earnings from any venture. Just not classy.

What odds did you get?

errc says

What odds did you get?

Very profitable ones.

Goran_K says

No, the United States elects presidents using the electoral college and has done so since the formation of the country

That is true. It makes one wonder why you posted a map showing how counties voted instead of how states voted. The only reason a logical person would post that as rational for determining odds is if they thought that land area or counties determined elections.

It's a completely illogical argument that appeals to some peoples emotions. Trump liked handing these irrelevant maps out to visitors at the White House. How sad.

YesYNot says

That is true. It makes one wonder why you posted a map showing how counties voted instead of how states voted. The only reason a logical person would post that as rational for determining odds is if they thought that land area or counties determined elections.

It's a completely illogical argument that appeals to some peoples emotions. Trump liked handing these irrelevant maps out to visitors at the White House. How sad.

I think it shows just how effective the Electoral College is at not concentrating power but diffusing it which was the wishes of the founders of the country.

Geniuses.

Goran_K says

I think it shows just how effective the Electoral College is at not concentrating power but diffusing it which was the wishes of the founders of the country.

That's a valid reason for posting the map. Why did you post it when asked how you arrived at Trump's odds of winning the election at 100%? It makes no sense in that context. It just provides a minor distraction while you avoided the question.

YesYNot says

That's a valid reason for posting the map. Why did you post it when asked how you arrived at Trump's odds of winning the election at 100%? It makes no sense in that context. It just provides a minor distraction while you avoided the question.

if that was my purpose, you have to admit, 15 post past, it was pretty effective.

Goran_K says

YesYNot says

That's a valid reason for posting the map. Why did you post it when asked how you arrived at Trump's odds of winning the election at 100%? It makes no sense in that context. It just provides a minor distraction while you avoided the question.

if that was my purpose, you have to admit, 15 post past, it was pretty effective.

I don't think anyone has forgotten that you dodged the question, because you're lying. Rather, it's being further scrutinized by others

errc says

I don't think anyone has forgotten that you dodged the question, because you're lying. Rather, it's being further scrutinized by others

The actual original thread was discussing just how badly the situation for the DNC is at the moment, but then you guys decided to talk about some irrelevant 538 analysis that was completely wrong anyway.

But you're just doing what the DNC is doing, avoiding any discussion of the internal problems with the party. IMO, this is a good thing because it'll lead to more losses for the party. So continue, please.

errc says

I don't think anyone has forgotten that you dodged the question

That's true. This all started with my original point that Trump's net disapproval is something like 16% at the moment. He's getting higher and higher disapproval's, so it's unlikely that the Republicans are going to win more seats in 2018. Nobody has come up with a legitimate argument against that. Goran said that the odds of Trump winning were 100%, which is an absurdity. Then, when asked for a reason, we got a map that Goran later admitted was a total non-sequitur. The thread is just proof that the TADS are irrational.

1636 says

Trump's net disapproval is something like 16% at the moment.

Only 16%?

From reading the mainstream press you'd think it was 116%. There is never a single positive story about him in NY Times, WaPo, CNN, NPR etc.

But they are arrogantly disconnected from the majority of Americans.

"heavy drug use, sex with prostitutes and strippers", sounds like a Republican. On the other hand, Republicans do it on the DL.

1641 says

Come on Patrick, for fuck sake Donald Trump spent the entire week ripping apart his own AG. How exactly do you spin this to be a positive story???

Sure, kinda bizarre, and yet irrelevant to his popularity.

Why did Trump get elected?

When the press honestly answers that question (and no, it's not "racism" or "fascism" or any ism at all) then they will begin to regain their credibility.

But it's too embarrassing for the press to admit that they are a core part of the problem (arrogant elites which have only contempt for real working people) so they won't answer honestly.

1 says

Only 16%?

It's pretty terrible when compared to other presidents. The only person who did as bad as Trump was Ford, who wasn't elected and pardoned Nixon. Clinton's approval numbers were bad too, but not as badly as Trump.

If you put the difference in terms of the percent of people who approve, it's about 45% more people disapprove than approve.

Additionally, there are 11 states that Trump won where more people disapprove than approve. That's a lot of states. He's going to have to turn things around if he wants another term. I'm guessing a lot of people voted to give him a chance, b/c they were so disgusted with the alternative. They are not happy with the result.

I agree that Trump is a bit dangerous and perhaps not particularly competent, but he is a refreshing break from the utter domination of all public discourse by those arrogant elites and their laws which tell people which pronouns they can and cannot use.

1641 says

I see Trump isn't doing anything about it and I know for a fact he ran on the fake wage discrepancy.

If Trump isn't going to do anything about SJW madness, why is he the answer here?

That's what people don't realize about the Sessions spat. Trump is looking to push Sessions out because he's not pursuing the swamp monsters (Debbie Wasserman, Clintons, etc). To get real change in Washington, one of these over grown monstrosities has got to do prison time. Imagine if Hillary Clinton got a 10 year sentence for mishandling intelligence or obstruction? That swamp monsters would flee (like Debbie Wasserman's IT guy), or they would change their ways.

Sessions needs to be out because he's too passive. We need some head knockers to change things around.

1641 says

If Trump isn't going to do anything about SJW madness, why is he the answer here?

Today's remarks on the military not being a place for trannies is a good start.

20442 says

Sessions needs to be out because he's too passive. We need some head knockers to change things around.

Also because he seems focused on benefiting the prison industry by aggressively prosecuting marijuana usage. Makes me suspect he's getting some kind of financial or political kickback for that. Marijuana is truly the least of America's problems.

1 says

1641 says

If Trump isn't going to do anything about SJW madness, why is he the answer here?

Today's remarks on the military not being a place for trannies is a good start.

20442 says

Sessions needs to be out because he's too passive. We need some head knockers to change things around.

Also because he seems focused on benefiting the prison industry by aggressively prosecuting marijuana usage. Makes me suspect he's getting some kind of financial or political kickback for that. Marijuana is truly the least of America's problems.

I couldn't agree more Patrick, er I mean 1. Today was a good start for putting SJW on notice.

As for marijuana, the only problem we have in this country with the herb is that it is too expensive and the supply is too limited. We need more Mary Jane!

And this comment comes from someone who has never inhaled.

Just think in a few years we could see Stuart Smalley in the Senate with Kid Rock the Majority leader and THE ROCK as commander in chief!

2192 says

I couldn't agree more Patrick, er I mean 1. The only problem we have in this country with Marijuana is that it is too expensive and the supply is too limited. We need more Mary Jane!

I'm not saying that smoking pot is a virtue, but as a vice, it's definitely minor. Less harmful than alcohol.

1 says

2192 says

I couldn't agree more Patrick, er I mean 1. The only problem we have in this country with Marijuana is that it is too expensive and the supply is too limited. We need more Mary Jane!

I'm not saying that smoking pot is a virtue, but as a vice, it's definitely minor. Less harmful than alcohol.

Cannabis oils are less harmful than excessive alcohol, but smoking is bad for your lungs and cardiovascular system. I don't think even smoking in moderation is a good idea.

rando says

Also because he seems focused on benefiting the prison industry by aggressively prosecuting marijuana usage. Makes me suspect he's getting some kind of financial or political kickback for that. Marijuana is truly the least of America's problems.

I agree. I honestly don't care about Marijuana, and believe it should be legalized. It makes no sense to have alcohol legal, but ban Weed. Legalizing it would also have the effect of cutting the legs off the Mexican drug cartels, and the more they are bled dry, the better.

The AG should be concentrating getting people like Loretta Lynch, Clinton, or Holder into prison so the rest of the swamp gets put on notice.

Goran_K says

Wow! How did Alaska get so blue when they can see Russia?

There's no way the M1 Abrams can take on the T14 Armata with only one fixed gear...

rando says

Today's remarks on the military not being a place for trannies is a good start