*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1720 on: November 09, 2016, 08:38:33 AM »

Just an FYI, that cartoon doesn't predate the real events on which it was based.
Huh?
How do you figure?
The episode aired in 2000.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1721 on: November 09, 2016, 08:44:49 AM »
Huh?
How do you figure?
The episode aired in 2000.
It didn't. Stupid people are spreading an urban myth. It was a short that aired in July 2015.

It's pretty funny, too. Enjoy:



Here's the relevant bit of the 2000 episode that people are conflating with the recent short: http://metro.co.uk/video/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-1355087/?ito=vjs-link
« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 08:48:59 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1722 on: November 09, 2016, 08:50:50 AM »
Ah.
Fair enough.

However, in "Bart to the Future" they said that Trump was, in fact, president.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1723 on: November 09, 2016, 08:52:03 AM »
Yup, just edited my post to add that. Couldn't find the clip when I first posted.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

George

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1724 on: November 09, 2016, 01:41:32 PM »
inb4 Hillary runs again in four years

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1725 on: November 09, 2016, 01:42:51 PM »
inb4 Hillary runs again in four years
She won't.
Because Trump will use his executive power to bypass the constitution and have her arrested.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5231
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1726 on: November 09, 2016, 01:47:35 PM »
Guys. There won't be an election in four years. God-Emperor Trump is immortal, and emperors rule for life.
The Mastery.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1727 on: November 09, 2016, 01:54:13 PM »
So,I'm never reading another poll again.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1728 on: November 09, 2016, 02:13:18 PM »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1729 on: November 09, 2016, 02:39:24 PM »
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1730 on: November 09, 2016, 02:44:23 PM »
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Oh let's not forget the market crashing (we'll see how that lasts) and trade deals now on rocky footing.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1731 on: November 09, 2016, 03:07:01 PM »
hats off to the trump campaign.  the gop now controls the house, senate, and presidency, with the supreme court soon to follow.  i genuinely hope they do a good job.

my 2016-2020 predictions:
manufacturing employment will continue to decline.
manufacturing output will continue to increase.
"the swamp" won't be "drained."  no one will even really try.
immigration will continue to increase.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8582
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1732 on: November 09, 2016, 03:32:26 PM »
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

The majority of polls assume a turnout equivalent to the average of the last two turnouts for the presidential race. Hillary's turnout didn't come close to Obama's 2012 turnout.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1733 on: November 09, 2016, 03:32:31 PM »

Rama Set

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1734 on: November 09, 2016, 03:40:44 PM »
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

The majority of polls assume a turnout equivalent to the average of the last two turnouts for the presidential race. Hillary's turnout didn't come close to Obama's 2012 turnout.

It is still looking like she won the popular vote... yay...

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1735 on: November 09, 2016, 03:45:21 PM »
Interesting...

I just read an article in the guardian:  all those countries that hate us are happy Trump got elected.
Iran
Pakistan
China
Russia

Israel is happy cause now they can stop being nice to Palestine.

So congrats: Trump made the US enemies happy....
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1736 on: November 09, 2016, 04:34:41 PM »
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 04:36:14 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1737 on: November 09, 2016, 04:36:41 PM »
SW is, sadly, correct.

If people feel angry enough, they'll let the devil himself run the country if he promises to change things.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7675
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1738 on: November 09, 2016, 04:38:55 PM »
Hillary is due to speak soon (several hours late).

Right now Tim Kain is speaking.
(watching on Norwegian News)
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1739 on: November 09, 2016, 05:07:55 PM »
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.

this is almost absurdly correct.

the one caveat i'd make is that i think it's entirely plausible that some of the "outlier" models like 538 actually did accurately quantify the probabilities.  538 rarely had trump pegged worse than 4:1 against, and prior to the polls closing had trump at nearly 2:1 against.  neither of those are such long odds that we should be very surprised to see them hit.  the cubs had worse odds of winning the world series.

personally, the big question i have is how the polls so badly missed on clinton's firewall.  538 had hillary as a nearly prohibitive favorite in michigan and wisconsin, and i think they had her as a 3:1 favorite in pennsylvania.  those are huge misses.

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.