Donald vs Hillary

betsy · October 23, 2016

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Do you think the national economy should be high-risked?

Eh?

kimmy · October 23, 2016

On 10/21/2016 at 3:46 PM, -TSS- said:

Now 85% likelihood that Clinton will win. So we are told by the trustworthy media which never lies or even exaggerates anything. So it must be true then.

I believe the "85%" figure is coming from Nate Silver, not from "the mainstream media". Unlike "the trustworthy media", Silver has some skin in this game: his reputation. Silver has built his reputation based on results. During the 2012 election, his predictions were accurate to within a few counties. He doesn't do polls himself, he analyzes groups of polls and builds his analysis from a composite of the results.

In 2012 "Morning Joe" Joe Scarborough mocked Silver. Said he seemed "kinda fruity" and suggested Silver must be some kind of partisan for suggesting the race wasn't a toss-up. Silver bet Scarborough $1000 on the results. Scarborough waived his hands in the air and doubled down on "kinda fruity", and Silver doubled down and offered a $2000 bet. Silver's publisher-- I think he was with Washington Post at the time-- made him apologize and withdraw the bet... but when the results came in, Morning Joe Scarborough had to apologize and concede that Silver knew what he was doing.

People visit Silver's website because they believe that Silver knows what he's talking about. I have little doubt that Silver's personal bias is towards the Democrats, because as an openly gay man, it seems almost inevitable that Silver would hope that the party that hates gays would lose the election. But Silver has built a professional reputation as being THE guy to look to for analysis of polls. To me, that track-record of success and his personal stake in being right makes him more believable than anybody else out there right now.

On 10/21/2016 at 4:14 PM, Bonam said:

... many Republicans convinced themselves Romney would win based on 1 or 2 outlier polls, while overall polling data clearly showed he had almost no chance.

I was thinking of that just today. In 2012 the right-wing web-media and blogosphere hyped these outlier polls to the moon. They somehow convinced themselves that there's no objective information and you can live in whichever reality you believe in.

The LA Times poll has been a consistent outlier for weeks, and the Breitbart audience can believe in it if they want, but they're just setting themselves up for crushing disappointment... much like they did 4 years ago.

-k

betsy · October 23, 2016

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where he not only has a lien against him but delinquent accounts, accounts in collection, and a court ruling against his business? That's not legal.

Cite.

Anyway, if it's settled by court....and he complies with the court ruling....how is that illegal?

The_Squid · October 23, 2016

Trump was for abortion before he was against it. Also, "ripping babies from the womb a couple days before the delivery " is called a C-section, not an abortion. Sheer stupidity.

Go Trump!!

kimmy · October 23, 2016

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Cite.

Anyway, if it's settled by court....and he complies with the court ruling....how is that illegal?

It's not a question of illegal. His only supposed qualification for being president is that he's a "successful businessman". But there's clearly some doubt about how successful he actually is.

-k

betsy · October 23, 2016

6 minutes ago, kimmy said:

It's not a question of illegal. His only supposed qualification for being president is that he's a "successful businessman". But there's clearly some doubt about how successful he actually is.

-k

Depends on what we view as "successful."

That he got some bankruptcies in his history, and yet managed to climb out of them, is part of his being successful, imho. I mean, he just opened up a 5-star hotel in Washington last month or so. How many bankrupt people can manage to do that?

His experience will benefit cities and regions that are bankrupt.

He's inexperienced in politics. So is Justin Trudeau.

Between the two of them.....who do you think is more qualified to run a country? A businessman such as Trump, or a drama teacher?

The USA doesn't have any other choice. It's either trying out a newbie, or going for the same corrupt Hillary.

We had a choice in the last election here in Canada, Stephen Harper, or the inexperienced Trudeau.

Look who won.

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

The_Squid · October 23, 2016

Just now, betsy said:

Depends on what we view as "successful."

Doesn't go bankrupt, have liens against accounts, doesn't lose a billion dollars in a strong economy and pays th people who do work for him, pays more federal taxes than an illegal immigrant... He fails on all those counts.

He is a celebrity and has managed to leverage his name to make millions of dollars..... luckily for him, he has managed to do that.

Wilber · October 23, 2016

Donald doesn't own a lot of the hotels with his name on them. He doesn't own either of the Trump Towers in Canada, he licenses his name and his company has a contract to manage them. Something I imagine the real owners are having second thoughts about now.

betsy · October 23, 2016

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Donald doesn't own a lot of the hotels with his name on them. He doesn't own either of the Trump Towers in Canada, he licenses his name and his company has a contract to manage them. Something I imagine the real owners are having second thoughts about now.

See? His name alone, is worth something.

Anyway....are you privvy with their business deals? They explained everything to you in details?

Do you know what's in the contract?

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

kimmy · October 23, 2016

55 minutes ago, betsy said:

If that's accurate.....being a high-risk doesn't seem to be a problem for Trump. Somebody's willing to take a risk!

He just opened a 5-star hotel in Washington!

Who risks their money on Trump, now that American banks don't trust him? Russians, it turns out:

Quote

The truth, as several columnists and reporters have painstakingly shown since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle.

So, yes, it’s true that Trump has failed to land a business venture inside Russia. But the real truth is that, as major banks in America stopped lending him money following his many bankruptcies, the Trump organization was forced to seek financing from non-traditional institutions. Several had direct ties to Russian financial interests in ways that have raised eyebrows. What’s more, several of Trump’s senior advisors have business ties to Russia or its satellite politicians.

“The Trump-Russia links beneath the surface are even more extensive,” Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”

...

My, my, my........for someone who's sure that Hillary will win, aren't Hillary supporters soooooo desperate.

I wonder why.

Desperate? I don't think anybody here is "desperate". I think most of us are very confident in how the election is going to turn out.

However, I think many of us are very fascinated that so many continue to support Trump, to believe that he'd be a good president in spite of all of his many glaring shortcomings.

-k

?Impact · October 23, 2016

Donald doesn't own the Washington hotel either.

Trump hotels is changing to Scion because his name has negative value.

kimmy · October 23, 2016

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

See? His name alone, is worth something.

Not for long.

The Trump name has become so toxic that they're rebranding as "Scion" to get rid of The Donald's stench.

-k

Wilber · October 23, 2016

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

See? His name alone, is worth something.

Anyway....are you privvy with their business deals? They explained everything to you in details?

Do you know what's in the contract?

Guess it was worth something.

Trump Tower Vancouver

Trump Tower Toronto

betsy · October 23, 2016

12 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Who risks their money on Trump, now that American banks don't trust him? Russians, it turns out:

...

Desperate? I don't think anybody here is "desperate". I think most of us are very confident in how the election is going to turn out.

However, I think many of us are very fascinated that so many continue to support Trump, to believe that he'd be a good president in spite of all of his many glaring shortcomings.

-k

He has businesses all over the world! Why is that suddenly a bad thing?

His shortcomings are a whole lot better than Hillary- and- Bill team.

Another 8 years of the Clintons (and the continuation of Obama), will create such damage to the USA that it may not recover ever again. That's what's at stake here.

There are those who see far beyond the tip of the nose.

This is truly a very significant election. That's an understatement.

Like all the women suddenly coming forward to accuse Trump of groping (after all these years of being silent), I don't pay much attention to that Russia ties that the Dems are trying to use to cause distraction from all the wikileaks. Apparently, a lot of people feel the same, thus he narrowed the gap according to some polls.

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

cybercoma · October 23, 2016

8 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Who risks their money on Trump, now that American banks don't trust him? Russians, it turns out:

-k

I'm sorry. I can't see your citations unless they look like someone vomited up a Christmas village.

cybercoma · October 23, 2016

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

He has businesses all over the world! Why is that suddenly a bad thing?

Because his businesses are crap? He has one of the worst credit ratings you can have. You get many tests back in school way back in the day with 19 out of 100 as the score?

cybercoma · October 23, 2016

On second thought....don't answer that. I'm afraid to know.

betsy · October 23, 2016

2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Because his businesses are crap? He has one of the worst credit ratings you can have. You get many tests back in school way back in the day with 19 out of 100 as the score?

It's been explained....and I even gave NAV - the bureau that gave that credit score - as my source for explaining.

If you can't understand what they say, sorry......you're on your own. I can't spoonfeed you, Cyber.

?Impact · October 23, 2016

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

Another 8 years of the Clintons

Let's see, the first Clinton oversaw massive and stable growth in the economy. Sounds like the right prescription for our current woes.

Edited October 23, 2016 by ?Impact

msj · October 23, 2016

John Cleese on Twitter:

heard a new American word yesterday: Trumph.

It's the complete opposite of a triumph.

bush_cheney2004 · October 23, 2016

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Let's see, the first Clinton oversaw massive and stable growth in the economy. Sounds like the right prescription for our current woes.

Weren't those some of the lowest years for the Canadian peso ? Clinton prolly doesn't worry about Canada's economy, and more U.S. protectionism will

probably hurt it. Trump would throw Canada a bone by approving the cross border Keystone XL pipeline.

?Impact · October 23, 2016

34 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Weren't those some of the lowest years for the Canadian peso ? Clinton prolly doesn't worry about Canada's economy, and more U.S. protectionism will

probably hurt it. Trump would throw Canada a bone by approving the cross border Keystone XL pipeline.

Canada grew and was doing very well during the 90's as well. We did have a finance problem due to Mulroney increasing our debt load to 65% of GDP.

betsy · October 23, 2016

Although a couple say it's a close race, most of the polls are saying Hillary is leading. But there's a problem:

Statistician Warns Americans To "Ignore The Capricious Polls"

This year is genuinely unique in merging several fundamental aspects, with a largely disenfranchised voting base across the country (i.e., record undecideds), and pollsters unable or unwilling to properly assess the true probability for Mr. Trump (and their incoherent polls evidence this). This is not a matter of apologizing for the ground-level odds currently shown by mainstream media, or that the average Hillary Clinton lead is merely unsustainably high. This loses the forest through the trees, as we theoretically prove here.

Start by studying a sample of the general election polls below, taken in just the past couple days.

Do you see anything wrong there? If you don't, then you have no business being around polling data.

The average margin of error on these 7 spreads shown is only 3%. Most polls should therefore be within a few percent of the 6% average spread that is advertised by media. But instead most are not!

For example, the difference between the highest Ms. Clinton spread and the lowest Ms. Clinton spread is >14 percentage points! And the standard deviation among these mainstream polls is 5%. So both have to be added together, and each is already higher than 3%! That's an unusual, impossible outcome through luck alone. Therefore something is misrepresented in the polls.

Also right now 2 of the 7 polls favor Donald (you just' don't hear about them), so double the 10-15% odds he is being given. In the final analysis of this trinomial data, on November 9 we'll look back and see only one poll being correct and most were flat out wrong. This evidence below is a breach of the probability theory behind proper polling, where most polls should see the correct spread within the margin of error interval (that's what the interval's definition must be!) If the margins are therefore completely busted, then so too are the egregious spreads that are seen to be all over the place (and mostly untrustworthy). Likely the correct expected spread right now is 4-5%, and the larger spreads are coming from pollsters that ironically also have the highest margin of errors (casting further suspicion on how close the election really is for Americans). We stand by our long-running estimate that the current probability for a Donald Trump victory is about in the 20% range, or twice what mainstream media is projecting. Of course that is low, but to some it's still a compelling 1 in 4 chance (and much different than some might expect given all the twists and turns this campaign season has brought us). It's also a better reflection of the true odds, versus those dished out by the same inane talking heads who recently gave you the Brexit "remain" prediction, or the NeverTrump prediction!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/statistician-warns-americans-ignore-capricious-polls

Edited October 23, 2016 by betsy

?Impact · October 23, 2016

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Statistician Warns Americans To "Ignore The Capricious Polls"

Agreed, the simplistic metrics given by the media are certainly questionable. A lot of this has to do with the soundbite culture of communicating to the masses, they want a message that can be conveyed in 5 seconds or less. This is where FiveThirtyEight does a great job. The most important is the detailed comparison curves in the page I linked to "What to expect from the electoral college". Right below that are similar comparison curves on the popular vote. What is missing from the statistician you link to is that it appears to miss the electoral college entirely and focus only on the popular vote. Sorry to inform you, but popular vote means squat. In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by over a half million votes but that did not get him the Presidency. Your statistician may understand statistics, but apparently needs to bone up on the electoral process.

I will take the 14.1% odds FiveThirtyEight is currently giving to Trump for winning as the best scientific guess from a soundbite prospective, but again encourage you look at the details on the electoral college.

b.t.w. If anyone is interested in who is behind the moniker Tyler Durden who wrote the article betsy linked to, it was exposed by one of them and reported by Bloomberg.

Edited October 23, 2016 by ?Impact

cybercoma · October 23, 2016

Again, betsy doesn't understand statistics and doesn't care about the statistical analysis of the election. She cares about finding and regurgitating articles that feed her confirmation bias. Talking to her about the statistics themselves, explaining them, and asking her to look at anything that might contradict her worldview is utterly useless.