U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[DMC]

4 hours ago, S John said:

Approval numbers don't matter - almost all of the polls said Trump would lose and they were wrong.   

 

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Trump lost the popular vote, so that does matter to whether the polls were wrong.

I am self appointing myself the polls nazi for these threads.  The polls were fine.  I don't like him, but as Silver says, the polls are all right.  Were the state polls off in 2016?  Sure.  But they always are susceptible to increased error.  Stop blaming the polls.  In effect you're blaming the pollsters, and they do great work generally.

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

SOOOO ANYWAY, on the trade war stuff: current estimate is that it'll cost each person about $320 extra this year from the cost of goods going up, which wipes out all of the low-income tax benefit and about 1/2 of all the middle class tax benefit right there. 

Yeah that seems to be the lowball estimate.  Fucken A.

2 hours ago, S John said:

I'm sure he didn't plan to get less overall votes than Clinton, but it was absolutely a deliberate plan to target and flip the states he targeted.  His campaign knew very well that they could win if they flipped the rust belt and they succeeded.  Besides, Trump assured his base that he only lost the popular vote because of massive voter fraud.  We may all know damn well that isn't true - but that doesn't matter.  And it will continue to not matter if he can hold onto the same people and the same map he got in 2016, which I do not think is that crazy of a possibility.  

In terms of the first sentence, yes.  Trump plainly out-campaigned Clinton in the deciding states.  As for him holding on to that coalition, we'll see.  The swing voters tend to be pissed off at whomever is in power.

2 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

 It was literally the only possible strategy his campaign could adopt; of course it was deliberate.

Yep.  Trump's campaign knew they had to thread the needle, and it happened to work.  They lucked out.  I don't get why people can't acknowledge that.  It certainly has nothing to do with Trump's intelligence - brilliant campaigns (which it wasn't, to clarify) have been run on behalf of idiot candidates countless times.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I know this is not parody or satire and I really want it to be.

Check out @Acosta’s Tweet:

 

[felice]

15 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm saying he's irredeemably stupid.   That the things he is successful at-- for example, bullshitting and demagoguery-- do not make him not stupid, nor are they signs of particular intelligence.

Indeed. My impression is that he is effective at bullshitting because he bullshits without shame and without doubt, and while it's obviously worked for him, those deficiencies aren't any kind of intelligence. The actual words aren't especially clever or convincing or event coherent, it's just the way he talks that resonates with a certain audience. He'd never have been able to attract the level of support he's got through written media (his tweeting goes down well with people who are already committed to his tribe, but I don't think he gets many new converts that way).

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I am self appointing myself the polls nazi for these threads.  The polls were fine.  I don't like him, but as Silver says, the polls are all right.  Were the state polls off in 2016?  Sure.  But they always are susceptible to increased error.  Stop blaming the polls.  In effect you're blaming the pollsters, and they do great work generally.

Here's another interesting article about the 2016 polls. I think there is a disconnect here between the people who study polls (or related subjects) and the general population. It's true that the polls were more or less consistent with typical performance -- marginally worse than usual at the state level, but nothing to write home about. However, these are not the "polls" the general population is thinking of when they think "wow, the polls were way off this year." What people want to know is not in the form of 46 +/- 4 vs. 49 +/- 4 (which is a simplification of what individual polls come up with), but this: given all of these polls, what is the probability my candidate wins this election? This was answered by a wide variety of poll aggregators and with one or two exceptions, these people failed and they failed quite miserably:

Quote

The 2016 presidential election was a jarring event for polling in the United States. Pre-election polls fueled high-profile predictions that Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of winning the presidency was about 90 percent, with estimates ranging from 71 to over 99 percent.

The 71% was FiveThirtyEight and it was a pretty significant outlier which really drives down that average. Keep in mind that if there are 5 people making predictions and one of them says there's a 71% chance, then for the average of all 5 to be around 90%, the average of the other 4 has to be around 95%. The majority of the aggregators were very nearly certain that Clinton would win (especially that Princeton guy) and, if I remember correctly, Silver even got into an argument with some of them when he said that her chances of winning can't possibly be that high. So it's true that the underlying polls were alright, but the translation that was delivered to the general population was not.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The 71% was FiveThirtyEight and it was a pretty significant outlier which really drives down that average. Keep in mind that if there are 5 people making predictions and one of them says there's a 71% chance, then for the average of all 5 to be around 90%, the average of the other 4 has to be around 95%. The majority of the aggregators were very nearly certain that Clinton would win (especially that Princeton guy) and, if I remember correctly, Silver even got into an argument with some of them when he said that her chances of winning can't possibly be that high. So it's true that the underlying polls were alright, but the translation that was delivered to the general population was not.

Right.  This is why I begrudgingly respect Silver.  At the time, he was the only one that wasn't cutting off the confidence intervals - which is fucking ridiculously stupid - and his model was much more realistic than pretty much all the others.  I remember talking to my mom right after the exit polls came out that evening on election night, and I said there's a 2/3 chance Hillary wins.  Thing is 1/3, obviously, does happen a third of a time, and I tried to emphasize that to basically everyone I knew.  But once you hear 2/3 - or even higher odds - most people think it's a given without considering how probability works.

[ThinkerX]

I decided Trump had a realistic chance of being the Republican Candidate a year before the general election.  Six months prior to the election, I said, flat out that not only was Trump going to be the Republican candidate, but he had a far higher chance of winning than was generally acknowledged, largely because Clinton was very effectively vilified.  My comments and concerns were dismissed out of hand here and elsewhere.  I'd taken to reading the comments sections of the various political articles.  Trump dominated those debates, and had a large, vocal faction in his favor.  Sanders had a core of dedicated followers.  There was little or no enthusiasm for Clinton.  That, right there, told me that Clinton was in far, far worse shape politically than the more left types were willing to admit.  Unlike the vast majority of other posters here, Trumps victory did not surprise me.

 

[DMC]

Ugh.  Just watched Bernie Sanders on Maher and it reminded me that I've never really shared my opinion of Sanders here.  He's a grifter.  Sure, he's a more admirable grifter than Trump because he plays upon your hopes rather than your fears, but he's still a grifter.  He was still peddling free college for all!  That's absolute, unbridled bullshit.  Take 15 minutes looking at the federal budget and you'll realize that will never happen.  Most of the things he says will never happen unless the Dems have 300 members in the House and 70 Senators.  So for all leftists that still hold on to the other old crazy white man, I implore that you change course.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ugh.  Just watched Bernie Sanders on Maher and it reminded me that I've never really shared my opinion of Sanders here.  He's a grifter.  Sure, he's a more admirable grifter than Trump because he plays upon your hopes rather than your fears, but he's still a grifter.  He was still peddling free college for all!  That's absolute, unbridled bullshit.  Take 15 minutes looking at the federal budget and you'll realize that will never happen.  Most of the things he says will never happen unless the Dems have 300 members in the House and 70 Senators.  So for all leftists that still hold on to the other old crazy white man, I implore that you change course.

That's harsh. He's not a grifter, he's just a jackass with admirable and impossible ideas that he doesn't think through.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

That's harsh. He's not a grifter, he's just a jackass with admirable and impossible ideas that he doesn't think through.

Get off Bernie's lawn!

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

he's just a jackass with admirable and impossible ideas that he doesn't think through.

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I've watched and remember his public appearances for the past fifteen years, but if I was - how is an admirable jackass with impossible ideas much different than what I stated?

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I've watched and remember his public appearances for the past fifteen years, but if I was - how is an admirable jackass with impossible ideas much different than what I stated?

I didn't say he was an admirable jackass, I said he was a jackass with admirable ideas.

To just say 'grifter' means someone intentionally stealing, like anyone in Trump's orbit. I think he's happy to benefit from his unfocused dreams, but I also think he actually believes the shit he's spouting. You can work with a man like that and get shit done, good shit, but a grifter is fit only for a noose. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

To just say 'grifter' means someone intentionally stealing, like anyone in Trump's orbit.

Yes, that's exactly why I'm calling Sanders a grifter.  He's been in Congress since 1991.  He knows better.  Thus, grifter.

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ugh.  Just watched Bernie Sanders on Maher and it reminded me that I've never really shared my opinion of Sanders here.  He's a grifter.  Sure, he's a more admirable grifter than Trump because he plays upon your hopes rather than your fears, but he's still a grifter.  He was still peddling free college for all!  That's absolute, unbridled bullshit.  Take 15 minutes looking at the federal budget and you'll realize that will never happen.  Most of the things he says will never happen unless the Dems have 300 members in the House and 70 Senators.  So for all leftists that still hold on to the other old crazy white man, I implore that you change course.

I didn't watch the Maher episode so I don't know what Sanders proposed, but free college for all (or close to it) is not entirely impossible, though it does require measures that the government is unlikely to take. The main reason it sounds so implausible is that college costs have risen way, way faster than inflation. You are right that the federal budget probably cannot stretch to cover this... but if the government truly wanted to, it probably has the power to bring those costs down. There are no federal universities so it cannot do so directly, but the federal government is rather closely linked to the funding of education and thus can say "You have 3 years to lower the per-student prices to be consistent with 1980 prices adjusted for inflation or else" where or else can be, for example:

1) Federal student loans may not be used by incoming freshmen at non-compliant institutions.

2) Private student loans used at non-compliant institutions by incoming freshmen are not subject to the Dickensian lender protections associated with most student debt (i.e. they can be discharged in bankruptcy just like most other debt).

Of course, I don't see our government doing this, but in principle, it could be done and pushing for something of the sort can at least scare colleges into not increasing the tuition so rapidly.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I didn't watch the Maher episode so I don't know what Sanders proposed, but free college for all (or close to it) is not entirely impossible, though it does require measures that the government is unlikely to take. The main reason it sounds so implausible is that college costs have risen way, way faster than inflation. You are right that the federal budget probably cannot stretch to cover this... but if the government truly wanted to, it probably has the power to bring those costs down.

Sure does!  Will it, ever?  Not gonna hold my breath.  That's a pretty good chunk of govt revenue, they're not gonna forgive all of it unless politically pressured.  You seem more cynical than I, so lemme know when that happens.

Also, there are much more than the 2 ways you proposed so as to fix student debt.  Do I know how?  Fuck no, but then I don't have any student debt, so I'm being a privileged asshole in that regard.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Sure does!  Will it, ever?  Not gonna hold my breath.  That's a pretty good chunk of govt revenue, they're not gonna forgive all of it unless politically pressured.  You seem more cynical than I, so lemme know when that happens.

Also, there are much more than the 2 ways you proposed so as to fix student debt.  Do I know how?  Fuck no, but then I don't have any student debt, so I'm being a privileged asshole in that regard.

When The Fracture happens, one of the splinter states will have a 21st century education system.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

When The Fracture happens, one of the splinter states will have a 21st century education system.

I'll put my money on Vermont.  Awesome weed up there.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Ugh.  Just watched Bernie Sanders on Maher and it reminded me that I've never really shared my opinion of Sanders here.  He's a grifter.  Sure, he's a more admirable grifter than Trump because he plays upon your hopes rather than your fears, but he's still a grifter.  He was still peddling free college for all!  That's absolute, unbridled bullshit.  Take 15 minutes looking at the federal budget and you'll realize that will never happen.  Most of the things he says will never happen unless the Dems have 300 members in the House and 70 Senators.  So for all leftists that still hold on to the other old crazy white man, I implore that you change course.

An article from USA Today on cost of Bernie's bill from 2017

Quote

We’re talking about the bill Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill last week, which would abolish tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities for students from households making $125,000 or less per year, and would make community college tuition-free for students from all income levels.

The estimated cost of the program is $47 billion a year. That would cover, Sanders estimates, 67% of the $70 billion it costs for tuition at public colleges and universities. States, he proposes, would cover the remaining 33%.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/17/heres-how-much-bernie-sanders-free-college-for-all-plan-would-cost/

The military budget that was recently passed:

Quote

The omnibus would provide $700 billion for defense spending in fiscal 2018, an $80 billion increase over caps that were lifted as part of a budget deal.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/379671-pentagon-to-get-some-flexibility-in-spending-700b-windfall?amp

I am not much enthralled by Bernie Sanders as friend of mine were. I do not though need to be "reasonable". I am not looking to restore calm and status quo that will be far more right wing then before.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

An article from USA Today on cost of Bernie's bill from 2017

Yeah those numbers are wrong, but I'm not interested in having a statistical argument so let's take them on faith:  I don't want states taking on as much as a third of the cost.  Because you know what will happen?  They won't and just say Federalism bitches.  Unfunded mandates aren't what they used to be.  As for the comparative military budget, sure, preaching to the choir.

12 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I am not much enthralled by Bernie Sanders as friend of mine were. I do not though need to be "reasonable". I am not looking to restore calm and status quo that will be far more right wing then before.

..More right wing than before?  Assuming that's a typo, but even then, not sure what your point is here.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just heard on the radio that Mexico agreed to pay for the wall and they're leaving a giant wooden horse on the border as an olive branch.

[DMC]

How old is your radio?