Page 1 of 198

Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:29 pm UTC
by Zamfir
After repeated requests: a new thread to discuss the Trump presidency.

This thread will also serve as a generic "US politics" thread, and I'll allow a fair bit of derailment.

Fell free to start other threads to discuss specific issues within US politics, with or without connection to Trump. Such other threads should stay on-topic, and off-topic posers should be directed to this thread.

As always: if you feel that this setup is not working, contact me by PM

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:37 pm UTC
by sardia
Why's it called aga?

In other news Trump's been chasing a Russia deal for three decades. Maybe with the presidency behind him, he'll finally close a deal that's eluded him. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/po ... f=politics
Trump is serious about restoring relations to Russia and ending sanctions.

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:39 pm UTC
by Mutex
You misspelled "ARGH".

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:41 pm UTC
by Thesh
sardia wrote:Why's it called aga?


I'm assuming it's named after the American Gastroenterological Association (because of the nausea).

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:44 pm UTC
by WibblyWobbly
Something "America Great Again"?

Maybe "America's Great Already"?

(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:44 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
I'm assuming it's a reference to the Aga cooker, a type of cooker best-known for its longevity. Clearly, in this metaphor, the meaning is that the legacy of Trump's presidency will be long-lived.

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:53 pm UTC
by WibblyWobbly
if it's not aspartylglucosaminidase, I'm out of here.

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:58 pm UTC
by Soupspoon

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:37 pm UTC
by Diadem
I'm guessing "Anthropomorphic Giant Asshole"

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:50 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So far given this discussion, it's "attention grabbing article"

Re: AGA?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:16 pm UTC
by freezeblade
Another Goddamn Argument

Re: AGA?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:19 pm UTC
by WibblyWobbly
This topic went sideways in a hurry.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:20 pm UTC
by Liri
WibblyWobbly wrote:This topic went sideways in a hurry.

We will not be corralled!

Re: AGA?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:43 pm UTC
by Mutex
Attempt Guessing Acronym

Re: AGA?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:33 pm UTC
by kingofdreams
'AminoCaproicAcid' shit i ducked up

Re: AGA

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:24 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Diadem wrote:I'm guessing "Anthropomorphic Giant Asshole"


freezeblade wrote:Another Goddamn Argument


These are my favorites.

Re: AGA

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:02 am UTC
by Thesh
WibblyWobbly wrote:(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)


Don't worry, in a matter of days that will turn around completely.

Re: AGA

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:38 am UTC
by sardia
Thesh wrote:
WibblyWobbly wrote:(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)


Don't worry, in a matter of days that will turn around completely.

Don't worry, China will gladly take the US's spot if the US can't keep it up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/busi ... ation.html
Well, it's not like the US has much of a choice anyway.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:26 pm UTC
by sardia
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... y-of-2016/
Nate silver dissects the 2016 general election. Key points

]some traditional reporters and editors have built a revisionist history about how they covered Trump and why he won. Perhaps the biggest myth is when traditional journalists claim they weren’t making predictions about the outcome. That may still largely be true for local reporters, but at the major national news outlets, campaign correspondents rarely stick to just-the-facts reporting (“Hillary Clinton held a rally in Des Moines today”). Instead, it’s increasingly common for articles about the campaign to contain a mix of analysis and reporting and to make plenty of explicit and implicit predictions. (Usually, these take the form of authoritatively worded analytical claims about the race, such as declaring which states are in play in the Electoral College.) Furthermore, editors and reporters make judgments about the horse race in order to decide which stories to devote resources to and how to frame them for their reader

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012.

Third, voter preferences varied substantially based on news events, and the news cycle ended on a downturn for Clinton.

This is some hard hitting stuff the wizard is stating: TLDR fundamentals pointed to a close race, Trump had a stronger base located in swing States, and then the media pushed Trump over the edge to victory. Afterwards, the media then blamed Clinton for the media's own mistakes.

I've been thinking about this as Trump is reverting the world back to a darker time, but having it all listed out really shakes me. Thoughts? It's weird to me that Clinton didn't have much influence on her campaign but somehow Trump managed to win the demographics that won him the presidency. Isn't that Trump's campaign affecting the race? Or are the candidates separate from how a Campaign is run?
If so, then why bother raising money for campaigning?

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:57 pm UTC
by thunk
sardia wrote:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... y-of-2016/
Nate silver dissects the 2016 general election. Key points

]some traditional reporters and editors have built a revisionist history about how they covered Trump and why he won. Perhaps the biggest myth is when traditional journalists claim they weren’t making predictions about the outcome. That may still largely be true for local reporters, but at the major national news outlets, campaign correspondents rarely stick to just-the-facts reporting (“Hillary Clinton held a rally in Des Moines today”). Instead, it’s increasingly common for articles about the campaign to contain a mix of analysis and reporting and to make plenty of explicit and implicit predictions. (Usually, these take the form of authoritatively worded analytical claims about the race, such as declaring which states are in play in the Electoral College.) Furthermore, editors and reporters make judgments about the horse race in order to decide which stories to devote resources to and how to frame them for their reader

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012.

Third, voter preferences varied substantially based on news events, and the news cycle ended on a downturn for Clinton.

This is some hard hitting stuff the wizard is stating: TLDR fundamentals pointed to a close race, Trump had a stronger base located in swing States, and then the media pushed Trump over the edge to victory. Afterwards, the media then blamed Clinton for the media's own mistakes.

I've been thinking about this as Trump is reverting the world back to a darker time, but having it all listed out really shakes me. Thoughts? It's weird to me that Clinton didn't have much influence on her campaign but somehow Trump managed to win the demographics that won him the presidency. Isn't that Trump's campaign affecting the race? Or are the candidates separate from how a Campaign is run?
If so, then why bother raising money for campaigning?


I think the question of turnout is more about underlying personality and external shocks than last-minute campaigning. Trump likely won by turning out a long tail of uneducated white voters, which had flocked to him since the beginning. Whereas Clinton could not match Obama's black-voter turnout levels. Though that is a good observation.

The news cycle this election seemed, well, cyclical, with somewhat of a 2-month period. Trump secures nomination in May-->Clinton in June-->Comey condemnation in July-->Khizr Khan incident in August-->"Deplorables" etc. in September-->Machado+Trump's sexual assault in October-->Reopened investigation in very late October. It's consistent with the theory that the media focus on the failings of one candidate, get tired of that and notice the shift in the polls, and move on to the next. Poor timing, really.

As for that last part, it may well be why Trump's campaign ran many fewer TV ads and spent less money overall.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:07 pm UTC
by morriswalters
I like the 538, but be careful about giving Nate Silver too much credence. There is no way to test what he saying. And he has a dog in the fight. So take what he gives you with a giant grain of salt.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:12 pm UTC
by Zamfir
Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:25 pm UTC
by PeteP
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-18/the-empty-trump-administration
Overall, out of 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation tracked by the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, Trump has come up with only 28 people so far.

The Atlantic's Russell Berman had a good story two weeks ago about how far behind Trump was. Since then? If anything, it's getting worse -- he's added only two of those 28 since Jan. 5. As Berman reported, the Partnership for Public Service suggested a president should have "100 Senate-confirmed appointees in place on or around

Though the article doesn't really say whether past presidents generally had more appointed at that point, though I assume so?

Re: US administration

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:40 pm UTC
by sardia
PeteP wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-18/the-empty-trump-administration
Overall, out of 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation tracked by the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, Trump has come up with only 28 people so far.

The Atlantic's Russell Berman had a good story two weeks ago about how far behind Trump was. Since then? If anything, it's getting worse -- he's added only two of those 28 since Jan. 5. As Berman reported, the Partnership for Public Service suggested a president should have "100 Senate-confirmed appointees in place on or around

Though the article doesn't really say whether past presidents generally had more appointed at that point, though I assume so?

Strange, I thought Trump was on track to purge most of the staff, mainly by skirting ethics and background checks. I guess that's a good thing right? His people can get vetted now.

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:10 pm UTC
by Liri
Yeah, I just read Silver's article, and I have to agree (with sardia). He's being quite honest about 538's coverage - they consistently said Clinton's situation wasn't as secure as others insisted. Whether they gave Trump a 51% chance or not doesn't really matter so much, when compared to everyone else.

The really disturbing thing is, like he said, how the news media has entered this state of groupthink and creating the viewer reaction that'll get them the most eyeballs.

That said, I don't know that anyone could have covered Comey's letters in a way that wouldn't lead to undecided voters either breaking for Drumpf or previously Clinton-leaning potential voters staying home. But, she should never have been in the position where a final downturn in the news cycle for her would doom her campaign.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:10 am UTC
by morriswalters
It's an Op Ed piece masquerading as science. They'll be arguing about this for years. It's a data point that's worth hearing, but it isn't gospel. And if 538 got it less wrong Nate should worry about being more right next time. Look at home first. He does have a point about the Times and WaPo though. One thing that was obvious to me after the election that national polling is worthless. It isn't a national election. It's 50 state elections.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:23 am UTC
by sardia
morriswalters wrote:It's an Op Ed piece masquerading as science. They'll be arguing about this for years. It's a data point that's worth hearing, but it isn't gospel. And if 538 got it less wrong Nate should worry about being more right next time. Look at home first. He does have a point about the Times and WaPo though. One thing that was obvious to me after the election that national polling is worthless. It isn't a national election. It's 50 state elections.

WaPo surprised me, I thought WAPO were the more biased ones while NYtimes was more objective. Of course they differentiate the different compartments (nytimes political desk vs The Upshot data office, vs investigative office) How can you get less wrong about a 30% chance of winning? Are you looking for a model that shows a 95% chance predicting the winner?
Spoiler:
Image

Do you have a critique of any of these assertions?

Re: US administration

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:16 am UTC
by Zamfir
sardia wrote:

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

You seem to take for granted that Nate Silver actually has some superior prediction method. But right now, his track record is 2 out of 3, basically par for the course. Perhaps his method is superior, but it can't yet reject the null hypothesis that he's just guessing like you and me.

His fame came from predicting more than just wins for Obama, he also gave detailed (and accurate) state by state prediction how the victory would happen. That suggested that he had a robust method

But this election showed that it's not actually that robust - when the election outcome is surprising, the method is fooled like everyone else. It's like a UPS that has exceptional reliability, but only when there's grid power. When the grid is gone, it's just as reliable as the others. Not worse, but not better either. Would you pay extra for that?

And prediction is his game. The NY Times can throw their hands in the air and say, well, it's inherently unpredictable. But Silver can't - if it's inherently unpredictable, what's the point of 538 coverage of the election? It would just be weekly updates on the noise. The Times at least gives you interesting articles on the difficulties of Manhattanites to get a good toilet designer for their 2nd helicopter.

Re: US administration

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:29 am UTC
by Mambrino
Zamfir wrote:
sardia wrote:

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

You seem to take for granted that Nate Silver actually has some superior prediction method. But right now, his track record is 2 out of 3, basically par for the course. Perhaps his method is superior, but it can't yet reject the null hypothesis that he's just guessing like you and me.


But most of my Bayesian statistics studies have been about how hypothesis testing is quite silly, really, and not representative of reality.

What was the chances he gave Trump? Around 30%? Those things do happen. If things that Silver's method assigns 30% chance of happening keep happening 30% of the time, golly, that's quite good, and he would be more worthwhile information source than most of the pundits who claim they are absolutely sure about stuff, or wave hands around "we can't really know anything! all bets are off!". If that means that people who treat inherently uncertain things such as probabilistic predictions like absolutely certain forecasts, well, it's about the time they are educated.

But you're right that we don't have enough data points yet to truly evaluate Silver's performance. (Or maybe we could treat each state as a data point of its own and look at that...?)

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:02 am UTC
by Mutex
It's like when the weather forecast predicts a 70% chance of sunny weather at the weekend, when it's not sunny people shout "you got it wrong!", as if "70%" and "100%" are the same thing. Presumably these same people think when you roll a dice, it won't land on ANY of the numbers, as they've all got a 1/6 chance and are therefore not going to happen.

Re: US administration

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:16 am UTC
by Dauric
Mambrino wrote: (Or maybe we could treat each state as a data point of its own and look at that...?)


Isn't this kind of the thing though? Clinton won the overall national popular vote, but it's the state-by-state electoral map that put Trump in the White House.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:27 am UTC
by morriswalters
sardia wrote:Do you have a critique of any of these assertions?
Yes. He contrasts positions that he can't demonstrate with any certainty. Take the proficiency of the Clinton Campaign. He denies that Clinton ran a poor campaign. How is that not just an opinion? What does he base his assertion on? Separate what he knows from what he believes. I can't state with certainty that he's wrong, but the only voice saying he is right, is his. As I said he's a data point that you can't ignore but he isn't gospel.
Dauric wrote:Isn't this kind of the thing though? Clinton won the overall national popular vote, but it's the state-by-state electoral map that put Trump in the White House.
Yes. The popular vote was the election she won. Unfortunately Trump won the other one that actually counted.

I said somewhere earlier on that I was practicing saying "Yes Mr. President Trump" to prevent me from gagging if he won. It still makes me gag.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:45 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.

Doing state-by-state data is pointless unless you are comparing it to another prediction method, like tea leaf reading and it would be very hard to distinguish between a rigorous statistical analysis and a competent tea leaf reader because there are so few interesting data points (most of the states are known quantities that either method would get right almost all the time).

Re: AGA?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:33 pm UTC
by Chen
maybeagnostic wrote:... based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.


I don't think you can work the percentages that way. I mean there was clearly some chance that Trump would win ALL the states. An exceedingly low one of course. If that did happen though, it doesn't necessarily mean that the 70% chance of Hillary winning was wrong. A lot of close states swapped to Trump (the exact method by which he had to win). I presume that probability lay in that 30% chance of him winning. It just materialized.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:06 am UTC
by ObsessoMom

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:33 pm UTC
by sardia

Even if this is true, all politicians have been stereotyped into attacking small government programs that are very useful and or wasteful at the same time. Like the farm insurance program, it wastes billions but it's kept in place because it's small compared to the budget.
Tldr politicians love attacking small symbolic spending measures. Trump is only different in that he gets more credit for it. Like the carrier deal, or the bullshit Ford or soft bank deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/p ... bsite.html
As expected, all references to climate change, the us has the most authoritative data on climate change, is being purged.

I guess from now on, climate change will only be referred to as "disasters, and disaster relief"

Re: AGA?

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:16 pm UTC
by reval
maybeagnostic wrote:predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide

Michigan and Florida do not a landslide make. It was a close election in the end, and well within the range of the polling.

Nate Silver discusses the limits of the polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ and winds up with "Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

Is it just me, or did a lot of people miss what 29% means? Do you really need that much life experience to see a mountain of 1% chances come true (1/100)? And a lot of 1/1000 chances. And a not-inconsiderable number of 1/10,000 chances. It happens. It's life. It doen't necessarily mean that the methods or the statistics were wrong. Nate Silver's analysis of the polls was in fact correct. It just means that the number on the die came up.

I went to bed that night aware of the 29%, and was not at all surprised the next morning.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:22 pm UTC
by sardia
reval wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide

Michigan and Florida do not a landslide make. It was a close election in the end, and well within the range of the polling.

Nate Silver discusses the limits of the polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ and winds up with "Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

Is it just me, or did a lot of people miss what 29% means? Do you really need that much life experience to see a mountain of 1% chances come true (1/100)? And a lot of 1/1000 chanches. And a not-inconsiderable number of 1/10,000 chances. It happens. It's life. It doen't necessarily mean that the methods or the statistics were wrong. Nate Silver's analysis of the polls was in fact correct. It just means that the number on the die came up.

I went to bed that night aware of the 29%, and was not at all surprised the next morning.

In gambling, it makes a lot of sense to say you have a 30% chance of losing your poker hand. Thats cuz you play the long game, and you can afford small losses. Politics is a series of one time events separated by a 2 years. That's really hard for a lot of people to comprehend. The best example we can think of is the Cubs winning the world series. They're really good, and heavily favored, at 66% chance to win. Would anyone have been surprised if they lost the world series? No, because it makes sense to say that. Compare that to Zamfir calling out someone when they are "2 for 3" for predictions.

Re: AGA?

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:10 pm UTC
by Xeio
maybeagnostic wrote:She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.
The election wasn't a landslide even by electoral college counts though. You would have to consider almost every election a landslide to consider Trump's victory a landslide (except maybe John Quincy Adams), and you have to totally ignore the popular vote to even try it.

It was a very close election decided by less than 100k votes in a few states. 00.08% of voters could have swung the election.

Re: US President

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:45 pm UTC
by sardia
Xeio wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.
The election wasn't a landslide even by electoral college counts though. You would have to consider almost every election a landslide to consider Trump's victory a landslide (except maybe John Quincy Adams), and you have to totally ignore the popular vote to even try it.

It was a very close election decided by less than 100k votes in a few states. 00.08% of voters could have swung the election.

Where did you get that .0008 number from? Last I checked it was 100x that number(1% loss), still close, but not that easy for Democrats to come back from.