Jump to content

OFFICIAL Biden thread, since it looks like he's getting in


Legaltitan

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Yet you seem confident in the models this time as you were the last, without giving reason as to why they were wrong last time.  Can you go into further detail on this without resorting to conclusions on me?

I still don’t think you understand. I’m not confident in any particular model. Just like scientific theories - they are things to be studied, understood and tried. 

 

I’m confident in science, mathematics, logic and a data driven understanding of the world. If you want proof of the validity of that ... well, more exist than I have time or inclination to share. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You would think he could express all of his shitty thoughts and responses in a more concise manner.

They also didn't have 3.5 years worth of the train wreck known as the Trump presidency staring them in the face in 2016.

Posted Images

33 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

I still don’t think you understand. I’m not confident in any particular model. Just like scientific theories - they are things to be studied, understood and tried. 

 

I’m confident in science, mathematics, logic and a data driven understanding of the world. If you want proof of the validity of that ... well, more exist than I have time or inclination to share. 

Politics is not science, mathematics, or logic.  Data has some meaning, though.  It's you that brought up models and nodes and how effective they are.  You seem pretty high on them. And you seem to be using the one you are favoring to counter my stance.

 

Let's just focus on 2012.  

 

I don't known what any models said about 2012, but I remember a real concern Obama would lose because of the huge number of wins for Republicans nationwide at all levels.  

 

Being a studying the models kind of guy, can you describe the difference in the models of 2012 and the one you are favoring now?  Why is this one more correct?  

Edited by Rogue
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

Insults, eh? 

 

You didn't believe Hillary had it in the bag?  Because the vast majority of liberals on this form did. I don't recall your stance, I just recall the over confidence.  And I recall the same shit being leveled at me that you are now.  

 

I'm not nearly as hurt by the results as you guys, because I was telling you guys Trump had a chance at winning. While extremely disappointing, I was prepared.  You?  

 

Bitcofer.  That's her name.  The negative partisanship thing.  Yeah, it's intriguing.  Does she describe how this effect failed in 2012? 

 

I really dont don’t care what happened to you in 2016 and how awesome your call was and how well you handled the Trump presidency. And this bullshit expert fallacy you’re trying to project now doesn’t give you attack dog InstaCred. Get over yourself. 

 

You haven’t grasped or believed anything I’ve posted, so I’d feel it a waste of my time to answer your questions. My same suggestion from yesterday holds — read the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. She apparently is active on Twitter, so knock yourself out. I don’t think her hyper partisan model was even active back then, but again, do your own research. 

Edited by begooode
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, begooode said:

 

I really dont don’t care what happened to you in 2016 and how awesome your call was and how well you handled the Trump presidency. And this bullshit expert fallacy your trying to project now doesn’t give you attack dog InstaCred. Get over yourself. 

I'm sorry, I'm not claiming any expertise.  Just the opposite.  I'm claiming the electorate is hard to determine and there is no better example than 2016.  At least in our lifetimes.  You are the one claiming some sort of expertise in this Bitcofer lady and that it guarantees Trump loses the election.  

 

Perhaps the one that needs to get over themselves is you?  Worth considering. 

 

22 minutes ago, begooode said:

You haven’t grasped or believed anything I’ve posted, so I’d feel it a waste of my time to answer your questions. My same suggestion from yesterday holds — read the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. She apparently is active on Twitter, so knock yourself out. I don’t think her hyper partisan model was even active back then, but again, do your own research. 

You haven't posted anything other than you believe what this Bitcofer lady has said when less than a week or two ago you believed Republicans turned away from Trump as to Democrates wins in the house (yet not the Senate). That was mainstream belief at the time, right? 

 

It also happens to align with your preference in a candidate choice, does it not?  You brought it up earlier to me.  Perhaps you are moved to have an extreme faith in her theory because it aligns with your preference?  

 

You seemed more versed in her model, so does she describe how it differs from 2012 when Obama still won when a swell of turnout for the GOP dominated elections at all levels prior?  How exactly do you dismiss this?  

 

Can you go into deeper details other than you agree with her assertions? 

 

I'll admit, Bitcofer's theory is compelling, but is it a complete story?  

Edited by Rogue
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Politics is not science, mathematics, or logic.  Data has some meaning, though.  It's you that brought up models and nodes and how effective they are.  You seem pretty high on them. And you seem to be using the one you are favoring to counter my stance.

 

Let's just focus on 2012.  

 

I don't known what any models said about 2012, but I remember a real concern Obama would lose because of the huge number of wins for Republicans nationwide at all levels.  

 

Being a studying the models kind of guy, can you describe the difference in the models of 2012 and the one you are favoring now?  Why is it more correct?  

Here ya go - knock yourself out. I’ve got a morning meeting 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/meet-a-polling-analyst-who-got-the-2016-election-totally-wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 of 42 in the midterms, closest other predictions were hopeful polling at 23 dem seats won

called the Virginia legislature turnout which came as a surprise

recently corroborated in part by the Foxnews poll showing several dems beating Trump

 

“Naw man, you have blind faith cuz you like so and so, and maybe you have da egos,...” *see what I did there, I flipped it on ‘em!!*

 

 

39 minutes ago, begooode said:

You haven’t grasped or believed anything I’ve posted, so I’d feel it a waste of my time to answer your questions. My same suggestion from yesterday holds — read the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. She apparently is active on Twitter, so knock yourself out. I don’t think her hyper partisan model was even active back then, but again, do your own research. 

Edited by begooode
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pragidealist said:

That's not 2012.  I think I asked specifically for 2012, as that reflects the GOP surge prior.  

 

Care to elaborate with more personal insight? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, begooode said:

40 of 42 in the midterms, closest other predictions were hopeful polling at 23 dem seats won

called the Virginia legislature turnout which came as a surprise

recently corroborated in part by the Foxnews poll showing several dems beating Trump

 

“Naw man, you have blind faith cuz you like so and so, and maybe you have da egos,...” *see what I did there, I flipped it on ‘em!!*

 

 

You didn't answer my question.  Did she distinguish or not the difference in the 2012 election in which Obama still won even after a huge Republican surge prior nationwide at all levels?  Not that I've read and not that you've read either, apparently.  

 

It's not a hard question.  Tangents do not answer the question as much as you are hoping to believe. 

 

This is the mindset that lost in 2016.  I'll give you one more chance to answer the very simple question I asked.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rogue said:

You didn't answer my question.  Did she distinguish or not the difference in the 2012 election in which Obama still won even after a huge Republican surge prior nationwide at all levels?  Not that I've read and not that you've read either, apparently.  

 

It's not a hard question.  Tangents do not answer the question as much as you are hoping to believe. 

 

This is the mindset that lost in 2016.  I'll give you one more chance to answer the very simple question I asked.  

 

2 hours ago, begooode said:

You haven’t grasped or believed anything I’ve posted, so I’d feel it a waste of my time to answer your questions. My same suggestion from yesterday holds — read the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. She apparently is active on Twitter, so knock yourself out. I don’t think her hyper partisan model was even active back then, but again, do your own research. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, begooode said:

 

Yeah, you've got nothing.  And you want to say you know the results in 2020.  You can't even answer simple, direct questions.  Quiet Conservative like. 

 

You are the ilk that isn't taking this seriously.....again.  

 

There is some good in that's it's only you and Praig trying to make the case the Dem nominee has it in the bag.  It was all of you in 2016.  Perhaps a good chunk are reluctant to make that same argument twice, and hopefully are taking it more seriously this time than you two.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Yeah, you've got nothing.  And you want to say you know the results in 2020.  You can't even answer simple, direct questions.  Quiet Conservative like. 

 

You are the ilk that isn't taking this seriously.....again.  

 

There is some good in that's it's only you and Praig trying to make the case the Dem nominee has it in the bag.  It was all of you in 2016.  Perhaps a good chunk are reluctant to make that same argument twice, and hopefully are taking it more seriously this time than you two.  

Enjoy your awesome victory lap, champeen.  And, yes, it sure is a good thing not too many know how to read da modelz!

LOL!!

 

spacer.png

Edited by begooode
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rogue said:

That's not 2012.  I think I asked specifically for 2012, as that reflects the GOP surge prior.  

 

Care to elaborate with more personal insight? 

No you didn’t. You asked for reasons models that worked in 2012, didn’t work in 2016 such that they could be believed/ relied upon in 2020.  Dr Wang describes all that. If you specifically want to know what be predicted in 2012- go to his website. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pragidealist said:

No you didn’t. You asked for reasons models that worked in 2012, didn’t work in 2016 such that they could be believed/ relied upon in 2020.  Dr Wang describes all that. If you specifically want to know what be predicted in 2012- go to his website. 

 

Yes, I asked specifically about 2012.

 

10 hours ago, Rogue said:

Let's just focus on 2012.  

 

I don't known what any models said about 2012, but I remember a real concern Obama would lose because of the huge number of wins for Republicans nationwide at all levels.  

 

Being a studying the models kind of guy, can you describe the difference in the models of 2012 and the one you are favoring now?  Why is this one more correct?  

 

But it's cool.  You and Begoode are big on models but little on discussing them, and now are doubling down on it.  

 

Don't start the celebration before the election is over again.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Yes, I asked specifically about 2012.

 

 

But it's cool.  You and Begoode are big on models but little on discussing them, and now are doubling down on it.  

 

Don't start the celebration before the election is over again.  

We were discussing them before you joined the conversation. . We’re just not into playing games with you. 

 

And I’ll do whatever i want- deal with it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rogue said:

Yes, I asked specifically about 2012.

But it's cool.  You and Begoode are big on models but little on discussing them, and now are doubling down on it.  

Don't start the celebration before the election is over again.  

And you are big on arrogantly adopting some father-knows-best tone of scolding posters (cuz it affects da Twitter verse elections, ?!) while shallowly attacking ideas that mute your COMPLACENCY battlecry.

 

In order to carry on your 2016 grievance you purposefully miss the main point presented and in doing so you are scornfully underestimating the Dem turnout. But fear not, Bitecofer’s 2020 expected human behavior response (let’s avoid your trigger word “model”) was developed post 2016 and is based on hyperactive party participation from the electorate fueled at this time by a hyperactive Trump presidency — not poll punditry. It’s literally the exact opposite of what you’re scared of.  It was updated post 2017 Virginia races to account for ‘manufactured rage’ she unexpectedly noted from repubs. And it completely nailed the 2018 midterms without anything close to it.  At this point I hear Samuel Jackson asking: What’s in YOUR wallet? 

 

Back to 2020, for sure both sides will show up bigly yuge, but the dems should prevail with their superior numbers, esp with independents going antiTrump in a big way. And that motivation already includes the requisite media hype and scare tactics on both sides and ensures there will be no complacency.  The Dem base now has the shitshow embarrassment of Trump presidency to painfully reference as a consequence of their lack of action; a fact you continually gloss over. As you do the corroborating recent FoxNews poll.  Cuz it’s just like 2016!! And nobody listened to me!! Nobody learned nothing!!

 

It’s much easier to learn stuff that might broaden your perspective when you’re not preaching over it.

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/17/this-political-scientist-completely-nailed-the-2018-blue-wave-heres-her-2020-forecast/

 

imo, Nov 2020 will almost surely be like another Independence Day, and we will be kicking Trump’s wannabe-king ass to the curb and snatching back our democracy in a huge party. Nobody is going to want to miss out that, so let’s do our part to make it happen.  You know Trump will do his thing over the next 15 months flailing away in the WH repeating his divisive rhetoric to an even smaller base; contemptuously daring the dems to turnout. But no one is sleeping this time around.  It’s on like donkey kong. 

Edited by begooode
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...