***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

Saying someone has a two-thirds chance of losing (Trump), even if you’re the best, doesn’t separate you as a forecaster. Especially when we got close to the election.

it literally does, when the other forecasters had trump at 1-5% odds.
he was criticized at the time for giving trump way too high of a chance.

nate was right.

 

[IATT]

That’s not the only time he’s been wrong

I’m not overly invested in dude.. as I said it’s information.. and with anyone else in that line of business, the after results dictates your credibility moving forward

Same with sports and we hear from guys being feed info from the agents and teams, once things actually play out we get to find out who’s sources are credible

 

[trappedintime]

Clinton won the popular vote and lost by tens of thousands of votes across MI, WI and PA. Any worthwhile model would make her odds of winning high with the popular vote still coming out near the model’s predicted outcome. Silver provided accurate analysis about the 1/3 chance of winning probably being higher due to several factors in his final analysis before the election.

We’re not in a situation today where Biden trailing in the polls means he has a good shot of coming back. He basically has no chance because of the electoral map, underperforming down ballot candidates by 8+, cognitive decline that can’t be improved, regularly embarrassing answers in interviews, piss poor attacks on Trump and Republican policy.

What’s similar this time around is dead enders not recognizing the permanent and fatal flaws in the candidates, then setting up a situation where friendly fire is the only way to rationalize the loss and place blame anywhere but where it belongs. It’s part of the binary outlook most of the electorate has. The same way Jan 6 happened because the only rational explanation to MAGA was that Trump was cheated.

This time around they’re setting up a fatally flawed candidate’s loss being due to the media, his party, anyone but him for being such a terrible candidate.

 

[IATT]

it literally does, when the other forecasters had trump at 1-5% odds.
he was criticized at the time for giving trump way too high of a chance.

nate was right.

Hillary Clinton has 81% chance of defeating Trump, Nate Silver predicts

Famed analyst accurately predicted state outcomes that led to Obama win in 2012 election but failed to foresee Trump becoming the Republican nominee

www.theguardian.com

Nate Silver Defends FiveThirtyEight’s Missed Call on Donald Trump Nomination

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, explained how the site failed to predict Donald Trump would win the Republican presidential nomination.

variety.com

How Nate Silver Failed To Predict Trump

The political world’s go-to numbers guy now predicts a series of likely wins for the Republican front-runner.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Hillary Clinton has 81% chance of defeating Trump, Nate Silver predicts

Famed analyst accurately predicted state outcomes that led to Obama win in 2012 election but failed to foresee Trump becoming the Republican nominee

www.theguardian.com

Nate Silver Defends FiveThirtyEight’s Missed Call on Donald Trump Nomination

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, explained how the site failed to predict Donald Trump would win the Republican presidential nomination.

variety.com

How Nate Silver Failed To Predict Trump

The political world’s go-to numbers guy now predicts a series of likely wins for the Republican front-runner.

www.vanityfair.com

Im not sure what point you are making with these links.


1. the final model run had Trump with a 30% chance. hilary 70. 70% chance of winning is not 100%. gave trump a much better chance than anyone.

2. 3. the second and third link is talking about the primary election which is about Nates punditry not the model.
polls always had trump leading in the primary Nate didn't belive it because he thought "the party decides" thesis would win out in the end.
that was wrong. but it has nothing to do with the model. 538 polling averages always had trump winning the nomination.

 

[IATT]

Clinton won the popular vote and lost by tens of thousands of votes across MI, WI and PA. Any worthwhile model would make her odds of winning high with the popular vote still coming out near the model’s predicted outcome. Silver provided accurate analysis about the 1/3 chance of winning probably being higher due to several factors in his final analysis before the election.

We’re not in a situation today where Biden trailing in the polls means he has a good shot of coming back. He basically has no chance because of the electoral map, underperforming down ballot candidates by 8+, cognitive decline that can’t be improved, regularly embarrassing answers in interviews, piss poor attacks on Trump and Republican policy.

What’s similar this time around is dead enders not recognizing the permanent and fatal flaws in the candidates, then setting up a situation where friendly fire is the only way to rationalize the loss and place blame anywhere but where it belongs. It’s part of the binary outlook most of the electorate has. The same way Jan 6 happened because the only rational explanation to MAGA was that Trump was cheated.

This time around they’re setting up a fatally flawed candidate’s loss being due to the media, his party, anyone but him for being such a terrible candidate.

As I said, not the gospel

With any information, no matter how flawed, there may be value.. just like polling done by specific entities

But if further information is available to us, we should consider that information when having discussions on the data being presented

Certain entities invested in trump and republicans have spent a lot of money in the information being distributed and the candidates being put forth

That doesn’t change the flaws of biden.. however that should be discussed when overly investing in the information being provided

Questioning bill ackmen and Peter thiel doesn’t stop or prevent us (or journalists) from questioning biden.. but it should raise the simple question of desired results when when they embarked upon endeavors

 

[trappedintime]

As I said, not the gospel

With any information, no matter how flawed, there may be value.. just like polling done by specific entities

But if further information is available to us, we should consider that information when having discussions on the data being presented

Certain entities invested in trump and republicans have spent a lot of money in the information being distributed and the candidates being put forth

That doesn’t change the flaws of biden.. however that should be discussed when overly investing in the information being provided

Questioning bill ackmen and Peter thiel doesn’t stop or prevent us (or journalists) from questioning biden.. but it should raise the simple question of desired results when when they embarked upon endeavors

I can't take you or anyone else seriously who wants to talk about what Trump's money is doing to make Biden look bad when no one in the history of presidential debates has looked that bad or followed it up with a delayed press tour that helped nothing. It's irrelevant. You're doing exactly what I said dead enders do. Place the blame somewhere else. It's time to accept that very few candidates have been this flawed running for president, and none ever had to deal with their ability to think or talk questioned. Major parties don't try to pull their candidates like this unless it's dire and it seems dead enders want to act like everything is ok, we just gotta bump a few pts up in the next 100 days! It's out of touch with why he's losing so badly where it counts.

 

[IATT]

I can't take you or anyone else seriously who wants to talk about what Trump's money

I’m not talking about trump’s money.. Trump is notoriously cheap

And nothing I’m saying is a defense of biden

However, it isn’t hard to look who is putting money behind Dean Philips or say RFKjr.. or how “pass the torch” is being repurposed

Or even why the simple questions of who/how aren’t being asked as simple follow ups

Again, not a defense of biden.. but I think it is painfully obvious heavy money people are invested in chaos and changing the math

 

[trappedintime]

I’m not talking about trump’s money.. Trump is notoriously cheap

And nothing I’m saying is a defense of biden

However, it isn’t hard to look who is putting money behind Dean Philips or say RFKjr.. or how “pass the torch” is being repurposed

Or even why the simple questions of who/how aren’t being asked as simple follow ups

Again, not a defense of biden.. but I think it is painfully obvious heavy money people are invested in chaos and changing the math

The heavy money people interested in changing the math are on the Dem side. You don't go from a projection of 50% of your original July fundraising hall last week to 25% this week if the biggest and most immediate concern isn't your own money.

I also find it kind of odd to mention Thiel. Did something change in the past week that I missed? He hasn't donated to any PAC or candidate this year.

 

[IATT]

The heavy money people interested in changing the math are on the Dem side. You don't go from a projection of 50% of your original July fundraising hall last week to 25% this week if the biggest and most immediate concern isn't your own money.

I also find it kind of odd to mention Thiel. Did something change in the past week that I missed? He hasn't donated to any PAC or candidate this year.

google who the principal donors are for RFKjr and cornel west

Just follow the money and then look at how else they’re spending

The billionaire who fueled JD Vance's rapid rise to the Trump VP spot — analysis

Vance's most prominent benefactor over the years has been iconoclastic tech investor Peter Thiel, who in recent months said he's not giving money to any politician in 2024.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[trappedintime]

google who the principal donors are for RFKjr and cornel west

Just follow the money

The billionaire who fueled JD Vance's rapid rise to the Trump VP spot — analysis

Vance's most prominent benefactor over the years has been iconoclastic tech investor Peter Thiel, who in recent months said he's not giving money to any politician in 2024.

www.cbsnews.com

Again, that is not 2024 donations. Peter Thiel’s money has been on the bench since JD in 2022.

 

[IATT]

Again, that is not 2024 donations. Peter Thiel’s money has been on the bench since JD in 2022.

polymarket

 

[osh kosh bosh]

polymarket

Lolwut?

 

[trappedintime]

polymarket

You’re making no sense at all. And ignore the fact that only a perceived cognitively declining president would get a third party or primary challenge from the other party’s backers.

Now we have confirmation he’s cognitively declining and any money invested in proving that can’t be pointed to as the point of failure here. Especially when his own donors have pulled the plug and the campaign’s finances suck currently for the final 3 mos. It’s the candidate and you’re mentioning a billionaire’s name who hasn’t even contributed this campaign cycle. That’s gaslighting for Biden, not ridin with him.

 

[IATT]

Lolwut?

google.com

 

[IATT]

You’re making no sense at all. And ignore the fact that only a perceived cognitively declining president would get a third party or primary challenge from the other party’s backers.

Now we have confirmation he’s cognitively declining and any money invested in proving that can’t be pointed to as the point of failure here. Especially when his own donors have pulled the plug and the campaign’s finances suck currently for the final 3 mos. It’s the candidate and you’re mentioning a billionaire’s name who hasn’t even contributed this campaign cycle. That’s gaslighting for Biden, not ridin with him.

Peter Thiel Invests In Polymarket Political Betting Platform—But The Future Of Gambling On Elections Remains Unclear

Regulators proposed new rules Friday that would explicitly ban gambling on political contests.

www.forbes.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4775338-nate-silver-polymarket-advisor/

 

[trappedintime]

Peter Thiel Invests In Polymarket Political Betting Platform—But The Future Of Gambling On Elections Remains Unclear

Regulators proposed new rules Friday that would explicitly ban gambling on political contests.

www.forbes.com

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4775338-nate-silver-polymarket-advisor/

That’s not what you seem to think it is. And you still haven’t acknowledged it’s rare for a candidate to get a primary opponent at all. Again, goes back to a failed candidate. Blaming a betting platform for elections doesn’t address much of substance here. Especially when nothing you linked describes funding campaign activity in any way.

If you’re insinuating that Silver is on board to make money off Biden dropping out… that’s something.

 

[IATT]

That’s not what you seem to think it is. And you still haven’t acknowledged it’s rare for a candidate to get a primary opponent at all. Again, goes back to a failed candidate. Blaming a betting platform for elections doesn’t address much of substance here. Especially when nothing you linked describes funding campaign activity in any way.

If you’re insinuating that Silver is on board to make money off Biden dropping out… that’s something.

I don’t care if biden is replaced.. my concern is the chaos that will ensue and the timeframe available for the practical

Which is why when the alternative of Kamala stepping in and became news.. stories got floated quickly about both biden and Kamala being out

Trump won in 2016 because of various agents of chaos, republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 30 years

 

[trappedintime]

I don’t care if biden is replaced.. my concern is the chaos that will ensue and the timeframe available for the practical

Which is why when the alternative of Kamala stepping in and became news.. stories got floated quickly about both biden and Kamala being out

Trump won in 2016 because of various agents of chaos, republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 30 years

How does any of what you posted relate? Agents of chaos are part of every campaign, especially in the age of super pacs but you made some conspiratorial connections that make no sense at all

 

[osh kosh bosh]

google.com

I know what polymarket is. What does it have to do with anything?

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[Bosa]

 

[IATT]