Bush-Chaney rumoured to be moving to Canada

Bonam · November 12, 2016

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

People might be inclined to ignore everything Michael Moore says, for obvious reasons, but he did predict Trump would win, a long before everybody else did.

His movie about Flint factory closures is probably why he spotted what Trump was doing a long time before most people. Everybody else was talking about Trump's appeal to alienated Rust Belt workers on November 9, Moore was talking about it in July.

He wrote a 5 point memo to Democrats after the election, and while 3 of the points are partisan stuff, I think two of them are pretty astute.

-k

Having predicted a Trump victory early is hardly a sign of prescience. He was one of 2 candidates for president. It's like all the people that predict the market will go up or that the market will go down. When it does, they claim that they had special insight. But really, when you have many people predicting something that only has a finite set of outcomes, some of them are bound to get it right. In fact, there are people on this very forum who predicted a Trump win, long before July... 20 such predictions from January in fact, in this very thread.

Plenty of people besides Moore pointed to the alienation of the rural working class from the coastal city dwellers, as well as many of the reasons for said alienation.

TimG · November 12, 2016

48 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Maybe, but Silver blew it on the GOP primaries too. Trump was never suppose to win by his numbers.

You have no clue what you are talking about. His numbers said Trump would pull off a victory 1 time out 3. That is a very large probability. Moreover, his numbers said that if Trump did win it would be close and Hillary would still win the popular vote. By any reasonable measure he called the election exactly. People who insisted either Trump/Hillary was going to win are just partisans that got lucky/unlucky because there was not analysis behind those predictions. It is just cherry picking and wishful thinking. The election could have gone either way (on a different day it could have turn out differently). Silver is the only one that made that uncertainty clear.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

On election night, FOX News acknowledged Michael Moore's prescient understanding of what was going to happen. He saw what was happening in Michigan first hand. Obama and Clinton didn't do much to change things for Flint, in fact it got worse for anybody using the water supply.

Smallc · November 12, 2016

And this is what you don't seem to understand. Gender identity matters. It has mattered since the dawn of time. In the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton is out of place. Now, that feeling will vary from person to person, but, at the heart of many of the complaints of corruption and elitism and being out of touch - that she's unhealthy or unfit in some ways - at the heart of much of that is her female identity. Many people won't even realize it.

I think a lot of you want to believe that this reality doesn't exist, as I once believed with racism, but it does.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

Just now, TimG said:

You have no clue what you are talking about. His numbers said Trump would pull off a victory 1 time out 3. That is a very large probability. Moreover, his numbers said that if Trump did win it would be close and Hillary would still win the popular vote. By any reasonable measure he called the election exactly. People who insisted either Trump/Hillary was going to win are just partisans that got lucky/unlucky because there was not analysis behind those predictions. It is just cherry picking and wishful thinking. The election could have gone either way (on a different day it could have turn out differently). Silver is the only one that made that uncertainty clear.

I don't care and have no fetish for Nate Silver or what Nate Silver does. Silver got it wrong, then he changed it up to look smart. Who cares ?

Smallc · November 12, 2016

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

On election night, FOX News acknowledged Michael Moore's prescient understanding of what was going to happen.

Well, that makes it official then.

Smallc · November 12, 2016

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I don't care and have no fetish for Nate Silver or what Nate Silver does. Silver got it wrong, then he changed it up to look smart. Who cares ?

In other words, he's right - you don't know what you're talking about.

TimG · November 12, 2016

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

I don't care and have no fetish for Nate Silver or what Nate Silver does. Silver got it wrong, then he changed it up to look smart. Who cares ?

If you have no "fetish for Nate Silver" why do you keep on insisting that he "got it wrong". Seems to me you are obsessed with creating an false narrative about him. If you really didn't care you would not say anything about him.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

5 minutes ago, Smallc said:

And this is what you don't seem to understand. Gender identity matters. It has mattered since the dawn of time. In the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton is out of place. Now, that feeling will vary from person to person, but, at the heart of many of the complaints of corruption and elitism and being out of touch - that she's unhealthy or unfit in some ways - at the heart of much of that is her female identity. Many people won't even realize it.

What is your personal experience with the rise of Hillary Clinton in American politics ? Have you tracked every calculated move since her graduation from Wesleyan ? Do you really think you are more in touch with her than millions of Americans who actually reside in the United States ?

Edited November 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

Just now, Smallc said:

In other words, he's right - you don't know what you're talking about.

If that makes you feel better after a bitter defeat in a foreign election then I am glad to help out. That's what the USA is for.

Smallc · November 12, 2016

The election only served as a distraction for me - have fun with your circus.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The election only served as a distraction for me - have fun with your circus.

I know...Canadian elections are mind-numbingly boring in comparison.

American elections get more juice here and it is a "Canadian forum".

Edited November 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · November 12, 2016

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I know...Canadian elections are mind-numbingly boring in comparison.

That explains why you spend so much time here.

Bonam · November 12, 2016

9 minutes ago, Smallc said:

And this is what you don't seem to understand. Gender identity matters. It has mattered since the dawn of time. In the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton is out of place. Now, that feeling will vary from person to person, but, at the heart of many of the complaints of corruption and elitism and being out of touch - that she's unhealthy or unfit in some ways - at the heart of much of that is her female identity. Many people won't even realize it.

I think a lot of you want to believe that this reality doesn't exist, as I once believed with racism, but it does.

"Gender identity" has existed for a couple decades (since social justice people invented it) and you talk about the "dawn of time"? In the opinion of who is Hillary "out of place"? Not once did I see any statement from anyone with any mainstream relevance attacking Hillary for running for president because she is a woman. Not once, and that's out of a whole lot of whacky idiocy that got said this election. People want to find their bogeyman of racism and sexism around every corner, but it is in fact only around a distinct few corners, not every one. The very same pervasive and often (though not always) baseless accusations of racism and sexism are what caused the backlash that won Trump the election. Doubling down on the same rhetoric will only strengthen Trump's support by illustrating how out of touch liberals really are.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Bonam

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

12 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That explains why you spend so much time here.

Because the main topics are mostly American and/or based on American references. Canada can't help it.

Edited November 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

BC_chick · November 12, 2016

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

And this is what you don't seem to understand. Gender identity matters. It has mattered since the dawn of time. In the opinion of many, Hillary Clinton is out of place. Now, that feeling will vary from person to person, but, at the heart of many of the complaints of corruption and elitism and being out of touch - that she's unhealthy or unfit in some ways - at the heart of much of that is her female identity. Many people won't even realize it.

I think a lot of you want to believe that this reality doesn't exist, as I once believed with racism, but it does.

K, I can't believe I'm doing this, but are you kidding me?

You're a 20 something white man who recently came to believe the realities of racism and because of that and you're under the impression that I don't believe sexism exists? I have 20 years on you, I'm from a completely different generation where gender identity was even more prominent than it is for your generation. I have lived with the harassment and constant undermining of my intellect my entire life. Add in my ethnicity and I understand what it's like to have to work three times as hard to get the same recognition.

Do not lecture that I don't understand, that's just downright insulting from a millenial white man.

John Kerry was a man and he lost. Personality matters.

She was a weak candidate.

kimmy · November 12, 2016

4 minutes ago, TimG said:

The election could have gone either way (on a different day it could have turn out differently).

I don't think that's quite right. He's not suggesting that the outcome is a random event where the outcomes might go one way or the other depending.

He runs many thousands of simulations based on the polling information, and adjusting the polling information in each poll based on each poll's sample size and chance of error. "If this poll underestimates Trump's support in this state by 0.1%, how do the results of the election change?" And he runs thousands of simulation based on all the possibilities of all the polls being off by any given amount. And when he's done, he's got 7000 simulations where Hillary won, and 3000 simulations where Trump is the winner, and that's where the 70% figure comes from.

I strongly suspect that the biggest source of error he faces comes from the part where the pollster asks the respondent if they are a "likely voter".

-k

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

The sharks are already feeding on Nate Silver and his "magic sauce":

http://acsh.org/news/2016/11/09/election-polls-were-wrong-and-why-rcp-better-nate-silver-10423

Basic statistics is to have a sample that correctly represents the entire data domain; I think he under-sampled several demographics.

Edited November 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

DogOnPorch · November 12, 2016

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I know...Canadian elections are mind-numbingly boring in comparison.

American elections get more juice here and it is a "Canadian forum".

Gosh, yes. Those Trump rallies were like big all-night parties...for those there and those in the chat rooms. That one maverick media group, RSBN, made sure you were there with the crowd...not just glued to Donald's face or the podium like the rest. Great fun...met lots of people.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2016

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Gosh, yes. Those Trump rallies were like big all-night parties...for those there and those in the chat rooms. That one maverick media group, RSBN, made sure you were there with the crowd...not just glued to Donald's face or the podium like the rest. Great fun...met lots of people.

I know, right ? I was amazed to learn that there were Trump rallies in BC even though many Canadians are dualies and could vote in the election. It took a brave person to admit "support" for Trump in Canada.

Hal 9000 · November 12, 2016

53 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I'm getting pretty sick of you continuously implying that the only reason I supported Hillary is that she's female.

First off, if you go check on the "Democratic Primaries" thread, you'll find that I was on Team Bernie right until the bitter end, so that alone kills your scummy, dishonest narrative.

Second, I didn't support Hillary in the general election because she's a woman, I supported her because Trump is a piece of garbage with disastrous policies.

Third, I'm also pretty tired of hearing that having a female candidate was "an angle".

Fourth, also pretty tired of hearing you constantly trivialize Trump's behavior towards women, as if calling Rosie O'Donnell "fat" or calling Hillary "nasty" was all that women were mad about.

-k

Boy, try to give a compliment!

First off; You have defended her on the Wikileaks, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, Russia, Regime Change and everything else under the sun - sometimes using sheer ignorance. When you kept on spouting "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" as if it was no big deal showed a true cluelessness to not only the situation, but the significance of why she'd be a disastrous leader.

Secondly; A female candidate in itself is not an angle, the way Hillary, Michelle, Obama, The media and celebs through it out made it an angle. That's not even debatable.

Thirdly; I have trivialized Trumps behaviour toward women, simply because it's mostly normal talk. Has nobody else even called someone a "pig", "fat"? Do you honestly think Trump is the only celeb to go on Howard stern and use some sexual bravado? I've seen women say way worse than Trump, I've heard them say it about Trump too. I've seen Hillary say worse things to women then Trump ever has - What, no outrage? Where are all those women accusing Trump of "unwanted kissing" or "pussy grabbing"? I know, they're cashing their DNC pay checks, that's where.

You know who else doesn't care about Trumps words to women? American women - that's who! College educated and non-college educated. After all the polls and after the media telling women that they are obliged to vote for Hillary because of Trumps words, they really couldn't care less.

TimG · November 12, 2016

18 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I don't think that's quite right. He's not suggesting that the outcome is a random event where the outcomes might go one way or the other depending.

Well, that assumes there is a precise answer that we just don't know. I think a lot of voters don't know if they will vote and who they will vote for until election day. The fact that the polls change from day to day supports that. When he talked about a historical 2% difference between the final polls and the final result he was talking about the day to shifts.

Separately from that you have polling error which he attempts to analyze by running multiple simulations which he uses it to calculate his probabilities. But even with those probabilities the 2% day to day uncertainty also matters.

DogOnPorch · November 12, 2016

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

I know, right ? I was amazed to learn that there were Trump rallies in BC even though many Canadians are dualies and could vote in the election. It took a brave person to admit "support" for Trump in Canada.

The Wife was with Hillary....but she could vote. I had to admire from afar...lol.