or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 2

post #41 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Nate Silver isn't finding such a tide favoring Romney, and his calls seem to be more accurate than most projections.

 

He was quite good for a while however in my opinion he went off the deep end in a two fold manner. First instead of remaining independent, he folded his entire website into the NY Times. However before that, he let the numbers play and they fell where they may. He had his occasional pollster rankings and for the most part they made sense. Instead he started changing the results for his reporting using various weights assigned to the pollsters. This methodology seemed a bit sound for a while, but at the end went off the deep end and I recall several HEATED discussions at his site about this methodology.

 

Now it's kind of mute and his ability to really help us understand polling and the pollsters is largely gone. The rational behind this is pretty clear to me. His site was purchased by the NY Times. Pollster was purchased by the Huffington Post. How much like the "Fact Checkers" they've gone partisan.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #42 of 1062

Gosh, I haven't posted here in years. I thought I might take a peak just to see what's going on in this neck of the woods.

 

SDW, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your argument is absurd. Your "data points" are a collection of unrelated facts mixed with some subjective commentary.

 

Your argument is similar to saying:

  • It's raining right now in Dallas
  • It's raining right now in New York
  • It's raining right now in Chicago
  • It's raining right now in Miami

 

Therefore it's probably going to rain in Washington. D.C. next weekend.

 

In fact, comprehensive modeling currently gives Obama a roughly 80% change of winning. Models can't capture all of the data and can certainly be wrong, but at least this model takes an informed, logical, scientific, and unbiased approach to predicting the outcome of the election:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

post #43 of 1062

Nate is a very interesting guy.  It is hard to argue with him.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #44 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Gosh, I haven't posted here in years. I thought I might take a peak just to see what's going on in this neck of the woods.

 

SDW, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your argument is absurd. Your "data points" are a collection of unrelated facts mixed with some subjective commentary.

 

Your argument is similar to saying:

  • It's raining right now in Dallas
  • It's raining right now in New York
  • It's raining right now in Chicago
  • It's raining right now in Miami

 

Therefore it's probably going to rain in Washington. D.C. next weekend.

 

In fact, comprehensive modeling currently gives Obama a roughly 80% change of winning. Models can't capture all of the data and can certainly be wrong, but at least this model takes an informed, logical, scientific, and unbiased approach to predicting the outcome of the election:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

His models are weighted using his magic formula full of his biases.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 1062

And I welcome anybody else to use their magic formula full of bias. My point is that there is a difference between trying to prove something quantitatively and qualitatively. A quantitative approach is always more valid than a qualitative one. You can't say Romney is going to win just because of some random, unrelated set of facts and a good "feeling" you have.

post #46 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

And I welcome anybody else to use their magic formula full of bias. My point is that there is a difference between trying to prove something quantitatively and qualitatively. A quantitative approach is always more valid than a qualitative one. You can't say Romney is going to win just because of some random, unrelated set of facts and a good "feeling" you have.

 

If you have a bunch of polls, from various methodologies and with their own "house effects" even per Mr. Silver and you thrown them together using a methodology you used to keep open but now do not reveal at all or until after the fact then what you have is precisely some set of random, unrelated facts strung together using a good "feeling" he has.

 

Want some quantitative numbers? How's this?

 

SDW included plenty of them. In fact his first three points dealt with them specifically.

 

1.  No President has been re-elected with unemployment at this level.  In fact, no President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.3%.  Reagan had the highest unemployment of any reelected President, and that was down from double digits by the time he was up for re-election.  

 

2.  The President's approval rating is in the low forties.  Anything less than 49% spells trouble, historically speaking.  

 

3.  A University of Colorado study, which has predicted the winner of every Presidential election since 1980, shows Romney winning.  The study analyzes state-by-state unemployment and other data.  The same study shows Romney winning 10/10 swing states.

 

Nate Silver talking about a few snap polls right after the Democratic convention hardly counts as quantitative.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If you have a bunch of polls, from various methodologies and with their own "house effects" even per Mr. Silver and you thrown them together using a methodology you used to keep open but now do not reveal at all or until after the fact then what you have is precisely some set of random, unrelated facts strung together using a good "feeling" he has.

He's called the 2008 and 2010 elections pretty well, if it's just based on his feelings, how did that happen? If his biases are toward donkey and against elephant, wouldn't his figures have been way off for the 2010 turnover?
post #48 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Make an argument.  Explain why we're screwed if Romney wins.

Hello, this is England calling where we have had a conservative government which has essentially been delivering the cuts that Romney and Ryan propose for the past two and a half years. We have not only seen zero growth but negative growth, our state sector has been slashed and the private sector has no money to take up the slack. Private companies that have ended up running public services are costing the tax-payer more than when they were run by local government whilst providing a poorer service. Our newly outsourced National Health Service has seen waiting times increase and public satisfaction plummet. And we are back in recession.

In contrast Obama has enacted policies to stimulate the economy, you are out of recession and are seeing modest growth. The conservative party are not interested in economic recovery for the masses.
post #49 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If you have a bunch of polls, from various methodologies and with their own "house effects" even per Mr. Silver and you thrown them together using a methodology you used to keep open but now do not reveal at all or until after the fact then what you have is precisely some set of random, unrelated facts strung together using a good "feeling" he has.

He's called the 2008 and 2010 elections pretty well, if it's just based on his feelings, how did that happen? If his biases are toward donkey and against elephant, wouldn't his figures have been way off for the 2010 turnover?


I'll be happy to read any link you have that compares his performance to others. From what I've seen, he is no different than most other folks who use numbers and rolling averages. If you just let them roll day after day until you get to the day of the event, then of course you'll hit 100% probability but until then it is about keeping things vague and keeping the door part way open.

 

Even now he doesn't say Obama WILL win. That would be a prediction. He says his closed model shows an 80% probability. Tomorrow it could show 81% or 79% and continue to shift until the election. It's no different than a stock price or InTrade. It reflects the consensus, slowly shifting one way or another, day by day. He calls what he does forecasting, not predicting. If you look at the weather starting from two weeks out, and adjust your numbers every day until the actual day the weather is in question, you will look pretty decent at what you are doing but really how can someone be wrong when you are allowed to adjust statements daily or hourly?

 

In that regard Silver gets the best of both worlds. If it were the weather, he could hit all the various weather services who have used the data to forecast the weather and he can adjust his statements hourly up until the actual weather event. Then he can take their weather forecasts from two weeks prior and declare how good or horrible they are based on being two weeks out while he does no actual weather forecasting himself.

 

Now that said, if SDW or myself or anyone else state that no president has been re-elected with X numbers in Y variable within the the last 40-50 years, that is a quantitative number. He isn't say Obama's going to lose because he sucks or because his friends who he shares a beer with hate him or because his knee is aching and that means rains a'coming.

 

If you, or I or SDW continue to toss out some numbers and are allowed to adjust our conclusions based on them up until the election, we will probably be 100% right on the day of the election. Silver's "forecasts" are about 98-99% right but they aren't making a prediction several months out. Anything predictive is given a large leeway. (I predict the Republicans will gain between 20-50 seats in the House as an example.)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #50 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Make an argument.  Explain why we're screwed if Romney wins.

Hello, this is England calling where we have had a conservative government which has essentially been delivering the cuts that Romney and Ryan propose for the past two and a half years. We have not only seen zero growth but negative growth, our state sector has been slashed and the private sector has no money to take up the slack. Private companies that have ended up running public services are costing the tax-payer more than when they were run by local government whilst providing a poorer service. Our newly outsourced National Health Service has seen waiting times increase and public satisfaction plummet. And we are back in recession.

In contrast Obama has enacted policies to stimulate the economy, you are out of recession and are seeing modest growth. The conservative party are not interested in economic recovery for the masses.

 

You make it sound like there are no other variables besides money spent by government to consider.

 

Obama "stimulated" the economy but we haven't seen modest growth and anything factor that actually showed repayment of the 5 trillion dollars borrowed would show negative results. If you compare yourselves to your contemporaries who tried the Obama model and did so until they were too broke to borrow another cent and then basically collapsed, Italy, Spain and Greece as examples, you'd see you are much better off.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #51 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post


Hello, this is England calling where we have had a conservative government which has essentially been delivering the cuts that Romney and Ryan propose for the past two and a half years. We have not only seen zero growth but negative growth, our state sector has been slashed and the private sector has no money to take up the slack. Private companies that have ended up running public services are costing the tax-payer more than when they were run by local government whilst providing a poorer service. Our newly outsourced National Health Service has seen waiting times increase and public satisfaction plummet. And we are back in recession.
In contrast Obama has enacted policies to stimulate the economy, you are out of recession and are seeing modest growth. The conservative party are not interested in economic recovery for the masses.

 

As far as double-dipping goes it appears everyone is headed there (including the US) and the US hasn't seen any real growth from its policies. At best it kicked the can down the road to now or 3-6 months from now.

 

But, let's take a look at the so-called 'austerity' that's been implemented in Europe shall we?

 

 

 

 

It doesn't look like there's been anything close to 'austerity' here. I don't see any 'deep spending cuts' or anyone 'slashing spending' in any way shape or form. At best the rate of spending increases has slowed. That's not the same thing as spending cuts (massive or otherwise) except in political-speak.


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/10/12 at 7:45am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #52 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It doesn't look like there's been anything close to 'austerity' here. I don't see any 'deep spending cuts' or anyone 'slashing spending' in any way shape or form.

At best the rate of spending increases has slowed. That's not the same thing as spending cuts (massive or otherwise) except in political-speak.

Of course it is. If wages are frozen and spending is less than inflation then that is an effective cut in real terms. Try explaining to a store-keeper why you should have the same amount of food in your basket even though his prices have gone up but your wages haven't. That's not political speak, that's food on the table speak.

We are seeing our police force cut by 25%, 12.6% cut from university spending, entire army battalions laid off (20% cut), with some soldiers actually receiving notice whilst putting their lives at risk overseas, mass closures of libraries, etc, etc, with practically no part of life left uneffected except the banking industry, where it seems fine to socialise the failure but privatise the profit. Also the richest in society have just received a tax cut. Regressive policies targeting the poorest.

Which brings me to another point why conservative cuts don't work. Not only has it stifled growth and removed services, it hasn't even done the one thing it was meant to do, pay off the deficit and stimulate the private sector to allow 'trickle down' to improve all our lives. In fact private business is being hit terribly, with banks refusing to lend. Most of us in the UK would be glad of a government willing to bail out our car industry as well as our banks and to initiate a job creation scheme rather than a mass redundency and casualisation scheme.

The USA has had no double-dip recession after four years of Obama and has seen growth whilst the UK is back in recession after two and a half years of a conservative government initiating Ryan-like policies. If you want the same then, 'Yay, go Romney!'
Edited by womblingfree - 9/10/12 at 8:20am
post #53 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post
The USA has had no double-dip recession after four years of Obama and has seen growth whilst the UK is back in recession after two and a half years of a conservative government initiating Ryan-like policies.

 

Yes, because all it takes to avoid such current hardships is to sell out the futures of your grandkids. Such things tend to bother conservatives more than liberals.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #54 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yes, because all it takes to avoid such current hardships is to sell out the futures of your grandkids. Such things tend to bother conservatives more than liberals.

Well our liberal is pesiding over a healthier economy nd righter future with his policies than our conservatives are with their policies.

Your country and mine have similar problems which are being dealt with in different ways.
Currently, after four years Obama's way is working better than the alternative in terms of not 'selling out you grandkids', or sellng out your soldiers, your police, your public servants and your population. You pay off the debt and secure your kids futures by stimulating the economy and increasing growth, something that conservative policy has abjectly failed to do. It has had completely the opposite effect. It's not prudent or fiscal 'conservatism' at all, just old money looking after itself and screw the rest of you.
Edited by womblingfree - 9/10/12 at 10:55am
post #55 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Currently, after four years Obama's way is working better than the alternative in terms of not 'selling out you grandkids', or sellng out your soldiers, your police, your public servants and your population. You pay off the debt and secure your kids futures by stimulating the economy and increasing growth, something that conservative policy has abjectly failed to do. It has had completely the opposite effect. It's not prudent or fiscal 'conservatism' at all, just old money looking after itself and screw the rest of you.

 

So let me see if I have this right:

 

a) Obama's policies have succeeded in stimulating the economy to pay off debt but the debt has increased by about $4T during his tenure.

b) You're country's conservative leaders have "cut" spending so much (quite massively according to you) that it hasn't actually reduced your fiscal deficit or debt.


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/10/12 at 10:58am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #56 of 1062

1. This is anecdotal. The sample size is 16. Only 16 presidents have run for re-election. 10 have been re-elected.

2. Today on gallup his approval rating is 50%. Also, what does "spells trouble" mean. This is vague.

3. This study is interesting, although it appears to be purely economic. There are other factors at play (although this economic certainly is a big one).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

If you have a bunch of polls, from various methodologies and with their own "house effects" even per Mr. Silver and you thrown them together using a methodology you used to keep open but now do not reveal at all or until after the fact then what you have is precisely some set of random, unrelated facts strung together using a good "feeling" he has.

 

Want some quantitative numbers? How's this?

 

SDW included plenty of them. In fact his first three points dealt with them specifically.

 

1.  No President has been re-elected with unemployment at this level.  In fact, no President has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.3%.  Reagan had the highest unemployment of any reelected President, and that was down from double digits by the time he was up for re-election.  

 

2.  The President's approval rating is in the low forties.  Anything less than 49% spells trouble, historically speaking.  

 

3.  A University of Colorado study, which has predicted the winner of every Presidential election since 1980, shows Romney winning.  The study analyzes state-by-state unemployment and other data.  The same study shows Romney winning 10/10 swing states.

 

Nate Silver talking about a few snap polls right after the Democratic convention hardly counts as quantitative.

post #57 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

MittRomneySad.jpeg

I know Mormons don't drink, but he looks seriously hungover in this shot.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #58 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So let me see if I have this right:

a) Obama's policies have succeeded in stimulating the economy to pay off debt but the debt has increased by about $4T during his tenure.
b) You're country's conservative leaders have "cut" spending so much (quite massively according to you) that it hasn't actually reduced your fiscal deficit or debt.

If you cut spending but the economy contracts you are getting less in revenue, paying out more in social security, construction grinds to a halt, manufacturing reduces and all this drags a countries economy down. This can also result in a country paying higher interest on the money it does borrow. Now is actually a historically good time to borrow as interest rates are at record lows. Nothing is better for the economy than to have it going upwards.

US economic growth has been expanding progressively and rose 1.7% in the last quarter. The UK economy has contracted quarter on quarter, we are in recession...again, down 0.5% in the last quarter. It is this which provides long-term success and recovery for a nation. Treating national debt as a credit card that must be paid off immediately is absurd as money you spend which causes economic growth makes a country far stronger than one which is stagnant and paying igher interest rates.

If you categorise the national debt as a proportion of GDP as a sign of success then the most successful American Presidents in history are Jimmy Carter and Bill Cliton. I'm sure all the Repulicans must have loved them.
Edited by womblingfree - 9/10/12 at 11:21am
post #59 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I know Mormons don't drink, but he looks seriously hungover in this shot.

 

He could also be tired. He's a busy guy.

 

But it's easy to display only pictures of people looking tired and declare that to be their normal state.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #60 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

US economic growth has been expanding progressively and rose 1.7% in the last quarter. The UK economy has contracted quarter on quarter, we are in recession...again, down 0.5% in the last quarter. It is this which provides long-term success and recovery for a nation. Treating national debt as a credit card that must be paid off immediately is absurd as money you spend which causes economic growth makes a country far stronger than one which is bankrupt and unable to borrow.
If you categorise the national debt as a proportion of GDP as a sign of success then the most successful American Presidents in history are Jimmy Carter and Bill Cliton. I'm sure all the Repulicans must have loved them.

 

First, you are measuring the US's (anemic) growth based on GDP which includes government spending and thus makes is an eminently flawed measure to determine real private sector growth. It's easy to show a growth in GDP by borrowing (or printing) money and spending it. That's what has happened.

 

Second, stop with the straw man about "treating the debt like a credit card that needs to be paid off immediately." That bullshit and I suspect you know it. The debt has not been paid down EVER (well at least in several decades.) and there are no signs that the US is going to be fiscally capable of getting even close to doing so for decades more.

 

The fact is, you basically appear to be claiming:

 

a) Obama's policies have succeeded in stimulating the economy to pay off debt but the debt has increased by about $4T during his tenure.

b) You're country's conservative leaders have "cut" spending so much (quite massively according to you) that it hasn't actually reduced your fiscal deficit or debt.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #61 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

He could also be tired. He's a busy guy.

 

C'mon, get with the program. This is where we show all of the most unflattering pictures of Romney and make all sorts of medical diagnosis about him while comparing those to the younger Biden (with the spray on tan) and pictures of a shirtless Obama strutting on the beach.

 

Because, well, that's what elections are all about.

 

It seems more and more clear that the Obamapologists have nothing to defend Obama for re-election.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Second, stop with the straw man about "treating the debt like a credit card that needs to be paid off immediately." That bullshit and I suspect you know it.

I think you misread, that is the argument that's being used here to justify the cuts. I do not believe the economy is anything like a credit card.

And anaemic growth is far preferrable to recession. Spin it however you want, 'anaemic growth' or 'green shoots of recovery'. I suspect it depends who's in power as to how it's described and by who and has little to do with actual rationality.
post #63 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

I think you misread, that is the argument that's being used here to justify the cuts. I do not believe the economy is anything like a credit card.
And anaemic growth is far preferrable to recession.

 

But you're claiming that Obama's policies have created growth to pay down the debt but, in point of fact, have increased the debt.

 

You've also claimed that there have been massive and deep spending cuts in the UK while the deficit (by your own claim) has not been reduced at all.

 

P.S. The Anemic "growth" is pretty much all government spending. It is no real growth at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #64 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It seems more and more clear that the Obamapologists have nothing to defend Obama for re-election.

I'm not sure what the majority answer is on the question: Are you better off today than the day Bush left office?

 

I know what my answer is.

 

Yes, I am definitely much better off.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm not sure what the majority answer is on the question: Are you better off today than the day Bush left office?

 

I know what my answer is.

 

Yes, I am definitely much better off.

 

Congratulations.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #66 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But you're claiming that Obama's policies have created growth to pay down the debt but, in point of fact, have increased the debt.

You've also claimed that there have been massive and deep spending cuts in the UK while the deficit (by your own claim) has not been reduced at all.

P.S. The Anemic "growth" is pretty much all government spending. It is no real growth at all.

It is real growth in terms of your economy. And yes spending money that stimulates growth can cut national debt long-term. Especially if you've borrowed that money at historically low interest rates and your economy is growing. If your economies shrinking then whatever you borrow's likely to be at higher interest rate and your currency will be worth less tomorrow than it was yesterday.
post #67 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm not sure what the majority answer is on the question: Are you better off today than the day Bush left office?

 

I know what my answer is.

 

Yes, I am definitely much better off.

 

Would you attribute your improved circumstances more to what a politician did for you, or what you did for yourself?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #68 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

It is real growth in terms of your economy.

 

No, it's not. I've already explained why but you clearly disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

And yes spending money that stimulates growth can cut national debt long-term.

 

I see. Long-term*. Got it. When?

 

*I find this long-term claim humorous given how obviously short-term these policies actually are. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #69 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you attribute your improved circumstances more to what a politician did for you, or what you did for yourself?

I had very little to do with it as nothing has changed with regard to my earning potential. Just a lot more money coming in. I don't ask people how they got their money. If they want to spend it for my services, that is fine by me. That and also stocks are doing well, and home values are rising. No complaints here.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #70 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I had very little to do with it as nothing has changed with regard to my earning potential. Just a lot more money coming in. I don't ask people how they got their money. If they want to spend it for my services, that is fine by me. That and also stocks are doing well, and home values are rising. No complaints here.

 

There's no question that some people do well even in bad times. And, certainly, when the government is printing, borrowing and spending money as has been happening recently, there will also be some who will benefit disproportionately from that spending. I don't think anyone has ever disputed this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I had very little to do with it as nothing has changed with regard to my earning potential. Just a lot more money coming in. I don't ask people how they got their money. If they want to spend it for my services, that is fine by me. That and also stocks are doing well, and home values are rising. No complaints here.

 

There's no question that some people do well even in bad times. And, certainly, when the government is printing, borrowing and spending money as has been happening recently, there will also be some who will benefit disproportionately from that spending. I don't think anyone has ever disputed this.

Sure people with relevant skills, resources and education generally get by regardless. People like me really don't need much help from the government. The poor, underprivileged, old, uneducated are the ones who need help. How exactly does the Republican ticket plan on addressing those issues? Wait don't answer... I'll tell you. They don't. In fact they would likely try to take whatever government assistance those people are currently receiving and privatize it through some corporation that paid them lobbying money. See, these poor people will be better off because the money that the corporation is making will trickle down through the economy and a rising tide floats all boats, except possibly the old, lazy boats that have holes in hull. /s

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #72 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Sure people with relevant skills, resources and education generally get by regardless.

 

That's true, but it isn't what I meant.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

People like me really don't need much help from the government.

 

Good for you. That said you may be benefiting indirectly and without even knowing it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The poor, underprivileged, old, uneducated are the ones who need help. How exactly does the Republican ticket plan on addressing those issues?

 

I don't know. Frankly, I don't see how either branch of the current establishment party helps those people and I see numerous ways they both hurt those groups (among others.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

In fact they would likely try to take whatever government assistance those people are currently receiving and privatize it through some corporation that paid them lobbying money.

 

Yes, the Republicans are corporatists just like the Democrats.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #73 of 1062

There's a simple, infallible metric that's being ignored here, one I base on my years of lurking:  SDW has never been right about anything, ever.  He has mystical powers of reverse prognosis. Calling the election for Romney virtually guarantees an Obama win.

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #74 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, the Republicans are corporatists just like the Democrats.

I admit I am biased because I despised G W Bush. I thought he was the most arrogant, least intelligent, least articulate and the worst liar of any president in my life time.

 

I am not necessarily in agreement with all of the Democrat proposals and policies but far more than Republicans. 

 

If the Republicans wanted to win this election by a landslide all they would have to do is promise to increase taxes on the wealthy and close all the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid taxes like putting their money in offshore accounts. That is what really needs to happen and the fact that they would never even consider that means they are unelectable in my opinion. They would probably be willing to say Jerusalem was only the capital of West Bank Palestine and Gaza, and that God is a myth before they would close up the tax shelters.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #75 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I admit I am biased because I despised G W Bush. I thought he was the most arrogant, least intelligent and the least articulate and the worst liar of any president in my life time.

 

Well I'd say Obama has certainly passed him on the arrogance front. He's also as much of liar (or more) and either equally stupid or evil. But, hey, he speaks well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I am not in necessarily in agreement with all of the Democrat proposals and policies but far more than Republicans. 

 

Okay.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

If the Republicans wanted to win this election by a landslide all they would have to do is promise to increase taxes on the wealthy and close all the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid taxes like putting their money in offshore accounts.

 

I agree that appealing to people's ignorance and envy may be a successful campaign and election tactic, it's hardly a very good leadership trait.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

That is what really needs to happen and the fact that they would never even consider that means they are unelectable in my opinion.

 

That is what "needs to happen" for what?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That is what "needs to happen" for what?!

To be fair. Average people cannot avoid taxes why should the rich?

 

I think a flat tax would be fair 20% on income after deductions and by deductions I don't mean a private jet to vacation in the Maldives. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #77 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair. Average people cannot avoid taxes why should the rich?

 

I think a flat tax would be fair 20% on income after deductions and by deductions I don't mean a private jet to vacation in the Maldives. 

 

Ahh. To be "fair." Got it.

 

I agree that no one group ought to have special benefits or privileges under the law (including the tax code). A flat income tax might be a path toward that (though I'd argue without any deductions at all and a much lower rate.) But, I can almost guarantee that it will be far more likely that the Democrats will (almost violently in fact) oppose such a tax structure.

 

P.S. You'd almost certainly need to cut spending substantially to even get to that 20% rate. I'm in favor of that...cutting even to the point where a 5-10% flat rate would work.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #78 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ahh. To be "fair." Got it.

 

I agree that no one group ought to have special benefits or privileges under the law (including the tax code). A flat income tax might be a path toward that (though I'd argue without any deductions at all and a much lower rate.) But, I can almost guarantee that it will be far more likely that the Democrats will (almost violently in fact) oppose such a tax structure.

Perhaps, I don't know that much about political tactics. I just know when I see a pile of dog poop on the sidewalk not to step in it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Perhaps, I don't know that much about political tactics. I just know when I see a pile of dog poop on the sidewalk not to step in it.

 

Huh?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #80 of 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


I'll be happy to read any link you have that compares his performance to others. From what I've seen, he is no different than most other folks who use numbers and rolling averages. If you just let them roll day after day until you get to the day of the event, then of course you'll hit 100% probability but until then it is about keeping things vague and keeping the door part way open.

Even now he doesn't say Obama WILL win. That would be a prediction. He says his closed model shows an 80% probability. Tomorrow it could show 81% or 79% and continue to shift until the election. It's no different than a stock price or InTrade. It reflects the consensus, slowly shifting one way or another, day by day. He calls what he does forecasting, not predicting. If you look at the weather starting from two weeks out, and adjust your numbers every day until the actual day the weather is in question, you will look pretty decent at what you are doing but really how can someone be wrong when you are allowed to adjust statements daily or hourly?

Have you seen cases where he switched his prediction from two weeks before an election and the day before? If new information comes in, then your model might need to be adjusted, hence the sliding averages.

The weather analogy is apt, but the time base is probably 10x longer, roughly speaking.

Another reason why weather is an apt metaphor is meteorology uses multiple models. The multiple wires you see on some hurricane charts is one such example, they compare the predictions from a dozen or so models and use that to help them arrive at their probability charts. Meteorologists generally don't gather their own data either, they get their weather data from services and analyze from there. I'm not seeing why that's necessarily faulty. There's plenty of data out there to be had, there's no need to collect your own in order to make a valid data analysis.
Edited by JeffDM - 9/10/12 at 2:37pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win