Law School Discussion

POTUS

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #650 on: November 14, 2016, 12:06:12 PM »
Too bad he's behind in Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

No Cinnamon, this race will be called pretty early. He'll lose Florida. Not by much, but he'll lose it. After that, he's done. He'd have to pull off an upset in Michigan and Pennsylvania, something like that. Not gonna happen.

Just curious, what will you do when HRC becomes POTUS? I'm not exactly happy about it myself, but what will your narrative be then? Let me guess, it was rigged?

I am excited for the day after tomorrow.

Because I assume that Cinnamon Julie Troll will be back on her meds.

Still excited?

I'll be excited, but only to the extent that Cinnamon Troll stops posting. I haven't made any substantive comments about this election since July (when I wrote that I was worried, except for Cinnamon Troll's confidence). Having followed the 538 models, I was seriously concerned about the actual outcome that we saw- a popular vote win for Clinton, but an electoral college loss.

Unfortunately, being (somewhat) plugged in to the local political establishment locally, I saw some early warning signs the day of, and I knew he had likely won by 7:30pm EST. I am still in a little shock- not so much because I didn't see it coming, but because I lack the imagination to believe that many Americans would vote for Trump, despite the fact that I knew they were doing so.

So I balance on that knife's edge- the pessimism that Americans elected our first internet troll, who ran on a lark and has no idea what to do, versus the optimism that democracy is the belief that people deserve what they vote for- good and hard.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #651 on: November 14, 2016, 03:55:26 PM »
....from a periodical....but it sums up much of what I have been writing...except for the influence of the FBI investigation and the emphasis on Real CHANGE...not Obama change.

...and the fact that the Catholics, Reagan democrats, and WOMEN rejecting Clinton as an enabler for her husband..

Essentially-- how I phrased and explained the silent majority.



"But mostly, it was a matter of Clinton fatigue, being weary of the same set of folks in power since 1992 who represent everything we distrust about the ruling elite, including government, the media, and even Hollywood celebrities (for me personally, the repudiation of the latter two were the sweetest of all the victory spoils)."

Re: POTUS
« Reply #652 on: November 14, 2016, 04:09:11 PM »
Too bad he's behind in Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

No Cinnamon, this race will be called pretty early. He'll lose Florida. Not by much, but he'll lose it. After that, he's done. He'd have to pull off an upset in Michigan and Pennsylvania, something like that. Not gonna happen.

Just curious, what will you do when HRC becomes POTUS? I'm not exactly happy about it myself, but what will your narrative be then? Let me guess, it was rigged?

I am excited for the day after tomorrow.

Because I assume that Cinnamon Julie Troll will be back on her meds.

Still excited?

I'll be excited, but only to the extent that Cinnamon Troll stops posting. I haven't made any substantive comments about this election since July (when I wrote that I was worried, except for Cinnamon Troll's confidence). Having followed the 538 models, I was seriously concerned about the actual outcome that we saw- a popular vote win for Clinton, but an electoral college loss.

Unfortunately, being (somewhat) plugged in to the local political establishment locally, I saw some early warning signs the day of, and I knew he had likely won by 7:30pm EST. I am still in a little shock- not so much because I didn't see it coming, but because I lack the imagination to believe that many Americans would vote for Trump, despite the fact that I knew they were doing so.

So I balance on that knife's edge- the pessimism that Americans elected our first internet troll, who ran on a lark and has no idea what to do, versus the optimism that democracy is the belief that people deserve what they vote for- good and hard.

Re: POTUS
« Reply #653 on: November 14, 2016, 04:38:14 PM »
Too bad he's behind in Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

No Cinnamon, this race will be called pretty early. He'll lose Florida. Not by much, but he'll lose it. After that, he's done. He'd have to pull off an upset in Michigan and Pennsylvania, something like that. Not gonna happen.

Just curious, what will you do when HRC becomes POTUS? I'm not exactly happy about it myself, but what will your narrative be then? Let me guess, it was rigged?

I am excited for the day after tomorrow.

Because I assume that Cinnamon Julie Troll will be back on her meds.

Still excited?

I'll be excited, but only to the extent that Cinnamon Troll stops posting. I haven't made any substantive comments about this election since July (when I wrote that I was worried, except for Cinnamon Troll's confidence). Having followed the 538 models, I was seriously concerned about the actual outcome that we saw- a popular vote win for Clinton, but an electoral college loss.

Unfortunately, being (somewhat) plugged in to the local political establishment locally, I saw some early warning signs the day of, and I knew he had likely won by 7:30pm EST. I am still in a little shock- not so much because I didn't see it coming, but because I lack the imagination to believe that many Americans would vote for Trump, despite the fact that I knew they were doing so.

So I balance on that knife's edge- the pessimism that Americans elected our first internet troll, who ran on a lark and has no idea what to do, versus the optimism that democracy is the belief that people deserve what they vote for- good and hard.

You were worried I July? Is that when you finally understood the gravity of an FBI investigation? 
And you finally learned what a Reagan Democrat was? Or that the silent majority are regular people from all cultures and backgrounds who are fed up with the federal government?

I think you learned your lesson the hard way at 730pm on election day.

Hey, buddy....re read what I wrote and tell me how I was wrong again.

Bernie sanders would have won this election....so suck on Hilliary shite...

Loki, my little troll, next time you should use my method...
I predicted that Hillary Clinton would not be nominated and if she was, she would not be elected president and the probability of her not getting the nomination would be like a Nixon effect....benghazi and her secret emails and basement server with top secret info would slowly rub her out of politics...and it did. I updated her chance of losing after the DNC fixed the primary for her...the posterior probability that many Bernie supporters would vote third party, write in or stay home greatly affected my original hypothesis--to punch home votes Clinton was about to lose..

So, the eroding effect of the FBI investigation was a strong virus like probable compounded by the probable of disenfranchised Bernie supporters..

Then we have the objective inference of the silent majority vote and my subjective inference of historical knowledge regarding---Nixon, Reagan, Perot, Obama and sanders....we shall call them rolling probabilities.

Lastly we have the data of posterior probabilities regarding location of particular voters (Erie, PA)--silent majority, plus Reagan Democrats or catholics--went for trump.

Based on these adjustments to my hypothesis that Clinton would end up like Nixon is what made my popcorn so delicious and enjoyable..

I was off by my prediction regarding the primary...but the posterior probability that the DNC was actively sabotaging Bernie was truly an unknown for me.

The FBI and Clinton herself lost her with the voters of her own party in key places as well as all over...ultimately those two caveats lost her the election.

And loki, you foolish little troll--admitting you were wrong is the first step to "excited" recovery.

My hypothesis was that Clinton wasn't going to be president ultimately was correct and if you re read what i wrote...

You do stand corrected..

I call my pop pop pop...prediction beysian/subjective/cinsyn probability.

It was the correct model to follow regarding this election.

I hope you learned something other than aye was right and you were wrong.  8)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #654 on: November 14, 2016, 04:40:53 PM »
Mostly, loki....you wrote it yourself...

You lack imagination and i do NOT....my subjectivity helped me call this puppy.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: POTUS
« Reply #655 on: November 15, 2016, 06:55:04 AM »

My hypothesis was that Clinton wasn't going to be president ultimately was correct and if you re read what i wrote...

Your "hypothesis" changed so many times that it's not even funny. The reason you're a troll, and people stopped discussing any serious matters with you more than a half a year ago, is because you kept spouting out nonsensical information and refused to listen even when your multiple incorrect predictions were "incorrect." Well, that and the fact that you've previously trolled here before under a different name.

But saying that X candidate will lose, in a two-party system, is similar to saying a year ahead that "The NFC will lose the Superbowl." You have a decent chance of being correct, regardless of the reason. As you would know if you bothered to look at facts, a replacement-level GOP politician given the current underlying fundamentals following a two-term incumbent would have out-performed Trump. Trump did not "energize" people- he underperformed both Romney and McCain (he received fewer total votes even as the population has increased). Clinton already has won the "silent majority" of votes, and as votes continue to be counted in California, New York, and Washington, her popular vote total will increase - and come close to Obama's 2012 results.

The issue isn't at all what you are (and some pundits) are making it; instead, it's a combination of a misallocation of voters (urban, coastal) for the Democrats, and a misallocation of resources from the Clinton campaign. Millions of wasted votes in California and New York (to list two), Georgia and Texas becoming a lot bluer (but not nearly close enough), and Trump using the electoral college's structural advantage. All the time spent expanding the map and attempting to turn Florida and North Carolina, while no time was spent defending the Midwest, where Trump eked out the win. C'est la vie.

But for what it's worth- there is no such thing as a "Reagan Democrat" anymore. We call those Republicans, now. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this campaign, but they will all be lost on you. Now that the election is over, go away. Given your track record, I won't waste any more time engaged explaining things to you. This post is for the two or three other people that still look into this thread.

Hopefully, once you are doing whatever it is you do (assumedly, collecting your SSDI benefits), people will go back to posting on law-related issues.


Re: POTUS
« Reply #656 on: November 15, 2016, 08:42:39 AM »
Oh loki, it is you that are the troll in my thread....you don't see it
Waste if time explaining that to you.
Check the facts...eg who is the op?

Reagan democrats are Catholics who mostly vote democratic but in pa for example they did not....ypu dont see it.
Check the facts.

I am not in shock because I called Clintons demise from the get go.

The FBI criminal investigation and Clinton herself lying and evading I'd what cost her votes ALL over...particularly on Michigan...
Check the facts.
..

You, loki, stand corrected.
You were wrong and I was right about states Bernie would win and the states Clinton would lose..

And I was most right and you denied over and over and over again that the FBI IS conducting a criminal investigation..

Hey, your a sore loser.....go re read the record here, you troll....you hilliary duper.


 8)

Re: POTUS
« Reply #657 on: November 15, 2016, 01:13:43 PM »
Wow.

Congratulations cinsyn, everyone else here stands corrected, you were right all along.

Thank you PD!

Why didn't Maintain and Loki admit they were YUGE Clinton supporters when they started discussing (like Maintain) and trolling (like Loki) on this thread.

How come they cant admit they were wrong about the FBI criminal investigation nor the fact that Clinton was never going to beat Rubio or Trump for that matter?

My hypothesis is that they are koolaide drinking Democrats who by into their own manure smell...
They wouldn't even give Bernie a chance.

Typically, the koolaide drinkers are in the deep dive and I bet half of them STILL cant believe that hiliary lost let alone that as soon as the FBI started the criminal investigation that the party was over....

Some like Maintain and Loki wake up thinking they are dreaming with this Trump presidency... if I had to bet on probables with rolling variables in my model. 8)

Loki and maintain will not admit that I predicted trumps win in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Iowa....why is that PD?

Loki swore up and down that there was NO FBI criminal investigation into clinton....i think he still does....

It's denial right?
Or are they kooolaode drinkers.

Hell, I even pointed out most of the states Bernie was going to win.

Any thoughts?

Re: POTUS
« Reply #658 on: November 15, 2016, 01:40:17 PM »
Please with your bull$#%t.

You guessed tails on a coin flip and got it right. You're not Nostradamus.

But yes, he won (although Clinton actually got more votes). I believed the polls and the polls were wrong.

And now we are stuck with a petulant know-nothing, a thin skinned ignoramus. Was Clinton a good choice? No, she was a train wreck. But Trump presents a risk (especially in terms of foreign policy) that is difficult to quantify.

I can understand being furious at the corruption, at the graft, at the nepotism, etc. I can't understand thinking that Trump is the answer. This was a monumentally bad choice.

And, ironically, Trump's election probably spells demographic doom for the Republican party. Between deporting people's parents and appointing justices who will overturn Roe, Republicans will lose millions of votes from women and Latinos.

Trump got 60 million votes (roughly the same as Romney), and Clinton will end up with something like 62 million. Obama got 65 million, and that is the real story here. Clinton was so compromised and unlikable that people simply didn't turn out.

Imagine Trump having to run against someone like Cory Booker in four years after driving away even greater numbers of voters.     

Re: POTUS
« Reply #659 on: November 15, 2016, 08:58:01 PM »
Please with your bull$#%t.

You guessed tails on a coin flip and got it right. You're not Nostradamus.

But yes, he won (although Clinton actually got more votes). I believed the polls and the polls were wrong.

And now we are stuck with a petulant know-nothing, a thin skinned ignoramus. Was Clinton a good choice? No, she was a train wreck. But Trump presents a risk (especially in terms of foreign policy) that is difficult to quantify.

I can understand being furious at the corruption, at the graft, at the nepotism, etc. I can't understand thinking that Trump is the answer. This was a monumentally bad choice.

And, ironically, Trump's election probably spells demographic doom for the Republican party. Between deporting people's parents and appointing justices who will overturn Roe, Republicans will lose millions of votes from women and Latinos.

Trump got 60 million votes (roughly the same as Romney), and Clinton will end up with something like 62 million. Obama got 65 million, and that is the real story here. Clinton was so compromised and unlikable that people simply didn't turn out.

Imagine Trump having to run against someone like Cory Booker in four years after driving away even greater numbers of voters.   

You just proved my above point and it is obvious that you dram
Nk the kool aide...
The Democratic Party is in shambles. The republicans just about control both branches plus the presidency...however the Republican Party is altered now...I'm excited to see jow it plays out and see what they will do.

In either case trump blew up both parties....
It was the season of disestablishmentarianism and change.

Clinton was a risk Trump represents visceral change..

Hey Maintain, you get exactly what you deserve for supporting that disingenuous congenial two faced ultra rich Scranton pa hack failure named hillary.

Bernie would be president now if you and many like you had not drunk the kool aide....think about it, I know you will.

But you still won't get that people didn't want the same shite....they want radical change.