Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

vote switching wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I think there is still a good chance that Democrats end up winning those races in Montana and Arizona.

Florida is still not over, but not looking good. Same with the governor's race in Georgia.

In Georgia that voting machines were switching votes in heavily democratic districts is a big deal.

Unfortunately, that's a possibility. There is no paper trail in Georgia.

If Alabama beats Georgia but doesn't cover the spread, it's still a win.

Trump "falls in love" with anyone, no matter how horrible they are, if they say nice things about him, so he feels other people operate the same way. This is why he is kissing Pelosi's butt right now. He thinks maybe she will be soft on him if he does. Big mistake on his part.

agip wrote:

What a Racket! wrote:

Nope.

Sorry, but that is really a nothingburger.

House total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of House races.

Senate total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of Senate races.

Yeah, politics sucks, gerrymandering is evil - as is Trump. And the Electoral College is an unfortunate anachronism that is here to stay. But overall, nothing much has changed. It's an imperfect system which works reasonably well, however frustrated folks might sometimes get with it.

has it worked reasonably well? Two of the last three presidents were elected without a a majority of the vote, and they are the two worst presidents of the postwar era. You tell me why the system is working.

Obama did win the popular vote in both elections.

People like McConnell understand this existential threat very well, hence why he’s been working overtime to add as many conservatives to the justice system as possible. Preparation.

The probability curve is the distribution function from whatever algorithm they have. If several events fall outside of the normal standard deviation then it wasn't a good distribution function.

There is only 1 probability curve for a roll of the dice and it cannot be disputed. There are thousands of various curves for election results. Claiming accuracy because it fell somewhere, anywhere on a curve is not correct. Nor would it be fair to say necessarily that it was incorrect so I suspect we're saying the same thing here.

agip wrote:

What a Racket! wrote:

Nope.

Sorry, but that is really a nothingburger.

House total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of House races.

Senate total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of Senate races.

Yeah, politics sucks, gerrymandering is evil - as is Trump. And the Electoral College is an unfortunate anachronism that is here to stay. But overall, nothing much has changed. It's an imperfect system which works reasonably well, however frustrated folks might sometimes get with it.

has it worked reasonably well? Two of the last three presidents were elected without a a majority of the vote, and they are the two worst presidents of the postwar era. You tell me why the system is working.

And WJC won with only 43% of the vote. How’d that work out for us?

agip wrote:

L L wrote:

There are 435 House races, so any one race isn't a big deal or didn't get national focus. That's about the aggregate, which was good.

The KS governor race wasn't really national news going in. A nice pickoff, though.

The national news stories going in were the governors races for Florida and Georgia. Not good for Dems.

The big Senate races were MO, IN, AZ, TN, TX, MT, FL and NV

The Dems only pulled NV which was a Hillary state anyway.

Maybe you can throw in WV, but Manchin was always favored to win and he helped confirm Kavanugh.

Republicans outperformed expectations and won almost every contested big race.

I think you are being too picky. There were huge pickups by the Dems in the US House, and statehouses across the nation.

Focusing on headline races isn't so useful.

Look, I can't stand 95% of what LL says, but he's completely right here, and you're stretching to try to make it out to be a big success. Even the talking heads on CNN were conceding that it wasn't a Blue Wave (hell, Van Jones said it was "devastating"), and the Senate gains completely contradict any semblance of a rebuke of Trump.

The gains in the house were not huge by historical standards. In fact, very average. Obama lost 63 seats and 6 senate seats in 2010. Clinton lost 54 seats and 8 senate seats in 1994. This is nothing compared to those Red Waves.

Fat hurts wrote:

L L wrote:

The big Senate races were MO, IN, AZ, TN, TX, MT, FL and NV

The Dems only pulled NV which was a Hillary state anyway.

Maybe you can throw in WV, but Manchin was always favored to win and he helped confirm Kavanugh.

Republicans outperformed expectations and won almost every contested big race.

I think there is still a good chance that Democrats end up winning those races in Montana and Arizona.

Florida is still not over, but not looking good. Same with the governor's race in Georgia.

The only reason there is slight hope in FL and Georgia is because the uncounted votes come from blue districts, but it’s pretty much sealed GOP wins

Yes, we are saying the same thing.

Actually, you CAN make those comparisons. I just did. And it does in fact prove that 2018 was not even in the same ballpark as actual "waves".

Stick to data and being objective; subjectivity (see your rambling) is useless.

Nate choked wrote:

agip wrote:

I think you are being too picky. There were huge pickups by the Dems in the US House, and statehouses across the nation.

Focusing on headline races isn't so useful.

Look, I can't stand 95% of what LL says, but he's completely right here, and you're stretching to try to make it out to be a big success. Even the talking heads on CNN were conceding that it wasn't a Blue Wave (hell, Van Jones said it was "devastating"), and the Senate gains completely contradict any semblance of a rebuke of Trump.

The gains in the house were not huge by historical standards. In fact, very average. Obama lost 63 seats and 6 senate seats in 2010. Clinton lost 54 seats and 8 senate seats in 1994. This is nothing compared to those Red Waves.

I agree no blue wave, just a rebalancing. But do explain how Nate choked when he correctly predicted a House win for Dems and Senate win for GOP? Seems prettt spot on to me. If a statistician assigns a 51% chance of something happening and it happens, they get credit IMO. Some people keep hanging on to anomalies like 2016 as if 1) probabilistic studies are ever 100% accurate and 2) 2016-like results will keep happening from now on

Get a grip

Just a thought. wrote:

Perhaps some voters actually voted for the candidate on the ballot, not Trump or Obama.

But I look at Kemp in Georgia, DeSantos in Florida and even McSally in Arizona.

Or how hard Trump campaigned in N Dakota and Missouri.

These voters were backing the ideals that Trump has been representing.

There was an opportunity for voters in that area to refute that kind of approach.

I don't care about someone like Romney winning.

There were winners that brought up the caravan, that suppressed the vote and that had racist tinges to them that won.

agip wrote:

What a Racket! wrote:

Nope.

Sorry, but that is really a nothingburger.

House total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of House races.

Senate total votes were won by Dems. Dems won majority of Senate races.

Yeah, politics sucks, gerrymandering is evil - as is Trump. And the Electoral College is an unfortunate anachronism that is here to stay. But overall, nothing much has changed. It's an imperfect system which works reasonably well, however frustrated folks might sometimes get with it.

has it worked reasonably well? Two of the last three presidents were elected without a a majority of the vote, and they are the two worst presidents of the postwar era. You tell me why the system is working.

Yes, it has worked reasonably well. And pointing out that two of the last three presidents were elected without a majority of the vote is almost incomprehensibly stupid. The EC was specifically set up to allow for the possibility of the POTUS to be elected while losing the popular vote.

If you want to ask a question please preface it with a statement that is not mind-bogglingly stupid.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

The probability curve is the distribution function from whatever algorithm they have. If several events fall outside of the normal standard deviation then it wasn't a good distribution function.

There is only 1 probability curve for a roll of the dice and it cannot be disputed. There are thousands of various curves for election results. Claiming accuracy because it fell somewhere, anywhere on a curve is not correct. Nor would it be fair to say necessarily that it was incorrect so I suspect we're saying the same thing here.

Yes, we are saying the same thing.

The difference with Silver/538 is they set out to be the "most accurate." They've received accolades in the past for being the best at predictions. They are known specifically for their methods of rating and adjusting the data because of other data and/or knowledge (which they do a fine job explaining in related articles). So the moment they do that, they "own" the data for those respective probabilities. Their goal is certainly to be "spot on".

I guarantee you that seeing the outcome be 3 Senate seats off of their highest probability does not make them happy.

What a Racket! wrote:

The EC was specifically set up to allow for the possibility of the POTUS to be elected while losing the popular vote.

If you want to ask a question please preface it with a statement that is not mind-bogglingly stupid.

^ This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement.

Meh...their model had the Republicans picking up more than half a seat. Being ~2 seats off isn't choking.

What a Racket! wrote:

agip wrote:

has it worked reasonably well? Two of the last three presidents were elected without a a majority of the vote, and they are the two worst presidents of the postwar era. You tell me why the system is working.

Yes, it has worked reasonably well. And pointing out that two of the last three presidents were elected without a majority of the vote is almost incomprehensibly stupid. The EC was specifically set up to allow for the possibility of the POTUS to be elected while losing the popular vote.

If you want to ask a question please preface it with a statement that is not mind-bogglingly stupid.

the point is that the electoral college is a very strange and unique way to elect a supreme leader. No other major country has it. So you have to ask how it's doing now.

the answer is that it put in office Bush2 and Trump, two guys who few serious historians will deny are two of the worst presidents we've ever had. I think, although this is an opinion, Al Gore or HRC would not have wound up on the bottom of the list of good presidents.

The point is that if you are going to have a democracy, then question the ways democracy is hampered in your country. The EC is a deliberate hampering of democracy. Is it working? I'd say no, given the quality of Bush2 and Trump, neither of whom would be president without it.

Democracy worked. the people chose Gore and HRC. Human design - the EC - gave us two disastrous presidencies.

What a Racket! wrote:

agip wrote:

has it worked reasonably well? Two of the last three presidents were elected without a a majority of the vote, and they are the two worst presidents of the postwar era. You tell me why the system is working.

Yes, it has worked reasonably well. And pointing out that two of the last three presidents were elected without a majority of the vote is almost incomprehensibly stupid. The EC was specifically set up to allow for the possibility of the POTUS to be elected while losing the popular vote.

If you want to ask a question please preface it with a statement that is not mind-bogglingly stupid.

Ouch! That’s going to leave a mark.