patrick.net

Trumpublicans and Maganomics are going to rock both parties in the mid terms.

Even in the 2020 elections those Senators and Congressmen will be replaced with Our Guys.

We may stay in gridlock with Dems and Repubs resisting until then. But 2020!
Oh man watch out, that's when every resister will be voted out and replaced with Kid Rock(is the nice one) type candidates.
Trump's new 7 SCOTUS Appointments will sail right through.
Trump's election reform will finally cleanse and convict those that need it.
We will get good healthcare
Great tax system, and all of the American hating foreigners that have been voting against us have all been deported.
2021 is when we really MAGA harder!

Tenpoundbass says

Trumpublicans and Maganomics are going to rock both parties in the mid terms.

Even in the 2020 elections those Senators and Congressmen will be replaced with Our Guys.

We may stay in gridlock with Dems and Repubs resisting until then. But 2020!

Oh man watch out, that's when every resister will be voted out and replaced with Kid Rock(is the nice one) type candidates.

Trump's new 7 SCOTUS Appointments will sail right through.

Trump's election reform will finally cleanse and convict those that need it.

We will get good healthcare

Great tax system, and all of the American hating foreigners that have been voting against us have all been deported.

2021 is when we really MAGA harder!

I gotta admit I'm surprised at how much momentum the GOP has built up in traditionally blue states. Then I see Nancy Pelosi on TV, and remember that she is helping build this momentum herself.

What do dems stand for??

www.youtube.com/embed/Vs1e2PPqTOE

Kid Rock may be the third black president.

Blurtman says

Kid Rock may be the third black president.

lol

All these celebrity politicians appear to be a backlash against the corruption and partisanship that Congress has displayed for so many years. When the system is so obviously broken and not serving the peoplenas intended, people who have had success in business or entertainment become interested in fixing it.
I'm calling this the Davy Crockett syndrome, so named for the Congressman from Kentucky who railed (futilely) against a Congress intent on stealing Indian land through the Indian resettlement act. He gave impassioned speeches and was a national political celebrity in a time when the media was just newspapers and transportation was limited to horses. But he didn't achieve his goals and wound up quitting to run off to Texas to fight Santana at the Alamo.

I see parallels here where a political outsider arises as a man plucked from among the lay people, elevated to notoriety by success, joins a failed Congress and vows to represent people honestly.

The problem lies in the pushback these lone gunmen receive from the entrenched politicians and power apparatus. By themselves they can do little, but they can inspire the public to choose better politicians at the polls! If the public sees that it is actually possible to vote for an honest man, they'll be encouraged to do so again.

Right now I can only think of one congressman who fits the bill: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
He's not getting a lot done railing against the system, but he keeps trying and keeps his opinions in the national spotlight. Perhaps people like him can inspire us all to choose more wisely at the polls next year.

Goran_K says

Looks like Michigan is going to be even harder for Democrats to take back. Decades of economic ruin under Democrat rule have given the GOP a huge boost in the state which turned red in November 2016.

Well Republicans worked out so well for Kansas.
Hope Democrats lose,because Stupid Fucks.

I am predicting 5 Repub senate pickups for 2018-lets see.

lostand confused says

I am predicting 5 Repub senate pickups for 2018-lets see.

How beyond fucked will we be then?

HEY YOU says

Well Republicans worked out so well for Kansas.

Just like high tax Democrats worked out so well with Illinois and Michigan? Funny how guys like you never bring those states up, which are 3-4 times bigger than tiny old Kansas. But hey, gotta pick and choose to paint the narrative you want, right? I understand.

The truth is Kansas was not a failure for Austrians though as much as it is a failure for Keynesians. Tax cuts don't work unless you also pull back government spending which Kansas did not do which lead to their budget impasse in the first place. Kansas by law has to have a balanced budget unlike the Federal government, or Michigan or Illinois so they cannot engage in all-out deficit spending like those states do. They must balance by spending less. Also remember, Kansas still had an extremely high personal tax rate at the top at 4.9% after the cuts, compared to say Colorado which has a top rate of 4.63%. So it's not like Kansas was a low tax burden state even after the tax cut roll out.

For better comparison of tax+spend versus cut+conserve, take a look at Texas where Abbot has been reforming state taxes versus California which has been steadily raising the individual tax burden:

That's 7 years of data. No narrative inventing needed here as you can see the results.

Also of note, California just lost Jacobs Engineering Group to Dallas. I'm sure California won't miss the taxable revenue of $15 Billion dollars.

lostand confused says

I am predicting 5 Repub senate pickups for 2018-lets see.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

YesYNot says

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Is that the same place that predicted a 71% chance for a Clinton win?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-trumps-approval-higher-than-congress-schumer-pelosi-ryan-mcconnell/article/2626318

That's interesting about Texas. I wonder how much is the energy industry, how much is cross border commerce, and how much is related to policy that could be replicated elsewhere without oil, gas, or Mexican labor. This hints that a lot of it is oil http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2017/mar/28/texas-economy-falls-3-21-probably-oil-slump-democr/, and temporary. But TX did a lot better than other oil/gas states, so it seems like it's much more than oil/gas.

Goran_K says

Is that the same place that predicted a 71% chance for a Clinton win?

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?

YesYNot says

so it seems like it's much more than oil/gas.

I regularly check where companies move to and from (used to be part of my job actually). A lot of it is Texas having a huge base of educated professionals, and companies loving their business friendly tax code.

It's really that simple. Jacobs Engineering Group had a nearly 70 year history in SoCal, and them leaving is not some sudden spur of the moment decision. The cost of doing business in a high tax burden state drove them away. It drove Toyota away, and it drove Intel plant jobs away.

Just wait until Gavin Newsom takes office in California, it will get 10x worse since that guy has never had a real job in his life that didn't involve Gordon Getty giving him lots of cash to start such daring enterprises like a "wine" company.

Goran_K says

A lot of it is Texas having a huge base of educated professionals, and companies loving their business friendly tax code.

My understanding is that housing remains cheap, because of zoning practices. This helps attract employees by improving quality of life. I would imagine that would help a lot too. The surprising thing is that Texas is hot as fuck. I'd hate to live there for that reason alone, but there are more.

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.