Like AB I too am optimistic that eventually the tolerance for BS pendulum will swing the other way. I see it when I speak to younger people. They know they're being hoodwinked...they just aren't sure how

It will likely take a full generational cycle to clear away the wool though.

In the meantime I'll do what I can by planting "seeds", but my focus remains making sure that I stay on the "have" rather than "have not" side of the social equation

(05-01-2016 12:07 AM)ZayanZaken Wrote:  Why am I telling you all that? To preempt any claim that I needed to see the anti-Trump comparisons to Hitler in order to think about relevant history in connection to current events. In fact, if you do not see that both Hitler's and Trump's trump card was/is charisma, you may not appreciate how dangerous charisma is. But essentially charisma is that quality in somebody that makes the herd want to follow them. In other words, charisma is a magnet for stupid followers.

You are a one dimensional thinker. Your logic is on the same plane as "An apple and a Ferrari are both red, thus I can win a race in an apple." And sadly, I see the same logic all over the right from people I used to respect.

As it happens, I already addressed the Hitler/Trump comparison several months ago in this very thread. There are a lot more differences than similarities between the two men. Besides that, America is not Germany. We have very different cultures.

The rest of your post as regarding Trump is borderline nonsensical. Alphas should never support a candidates females and betas support? Are you numerate? Our candidate would never win if we followed that rule. Alphas are, in fact, required to recruit the support of betas to get anything significant done. Beta men are the engine of civilization. What matters is who's driving.

All the crap about Bush has nothing at all to do with this election. Trump's foreign policy is basically directly opposed to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

(05-01-2016 06:23 AM)sixsix Wrote:  But they think they are alone in this feeling: preference falsification. They're too afraid to talk about it and all the see in the media is the right way to think and behave, so they do. But the feelings of unease increase further and further. Then when the bubble pops, one real estate billionaire stating without shame that the emperor is in fact completely naked, we see the preference cascade where everyone realizes everyone else was also thinking the same. Essential concepts, in my opinion.

Great observation, Sixsix, and I'd agree the concept is essential and seems to match the pattern I've been seeing. A possible difference in my experience as opposed to others here is the fact that I've been deliberately-floating gentle thoughtcrime balloons with people I've been interacting with, seeing who decides to grabs the string. I've been surprised by how desperately some have clutched at it. I suspect it's a relief from them to have a break from a necessary performance born out of paranoia. Someone, even for a few minutes, is seeing their real face behind the mask.

Perhaps the need to Wear Masks is simply a survival tactic in a Narcissistic Age, because the majority of Societal Actors will be generating their narcissistic supply by wearing false ones. The difference might be that where Narcissists are terrified of being seen for who they really are under the mask, maybe people who long for Genuine Connection with others around them are more troubled by never being allowed to remove it.

(05-01-2016 07:34 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Great observation, Sixsix, and I'd agree the concept is essential and seems to match the pattern I've been seeing. A possible difference in my experience as opposed to others here is the fact that I've been deliberately-floating gentle thoughtcrime balloons with people I've been interacting with, seeing who decides to grabs the string. I've been surprised by how desperately some have clutched at it. I suspect it's a relief from them to have a break from a necessary performance born out of paranoia. Someone, even for a few minutes, is seeing their real face behind the mask.

I have been doing the same for a long time because I love confrontation. Even as a kid I loved playing devil's advocate because it's a great intellectual exercise and it's very satisfying to defend the indefensible. Many people have discussed the costs and benefits of voicing your politically incorrect opinions in public and while I understand the sentiment, it's never been an issue for me.

Now for the last couple of years I also see it as a moral obligation. Many people are feeling very anxious and don't have an outlet, leaving them to feel guilty, isolated and insecure. So by being more outspoken about it, you will inadvertently reach some people and reassure them they are not alone. It also means that looking acceptable is a must: Being socially contrarian is unlikely to have a positive effect when people don't look up to you.

Believe in yourself, stand for your principles and have fun with that. When people become upset you have to be able to play with them and for that you have to be able to control yourself. At the end of the day, what we stand for here is the right thing and truth, beauty and goodness is always easy to defend when you have the balls to go at it alone. Others will join to follow your lead.

New NBC poll has Trump at 49%, Cruz 34% in Indiana.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/do...ce-n565356

Considering that the poll is NBC, I bet Trump's number is actually higher than that.

If you reallocate Kasich's 2nd-choice support in the NBC poll, IN horserace becomes:
Trump 53%
Cruz 42%
Other 1%
Undecided 5%

(05-01-2016 08:30 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  New NBC poll has Trump at 49%, Cruz 34% in Indiana.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/do...ce-n565356

Considering that the poll is NBC, I bet Trump's number is actually higher than that.

If this poll is right (and it sounds a little optimistic to me, but it certainly indicates that Trump has a solid lead) the race ends Tuesday night. I would expect Cruz to drop out and clear the way for Trump's nomination. Regardless, the primary will be over. As I noted, it's been essentially over since Tuesday, but a win in Indiana (let alone a crushing win as indicated by this poll) will put a bow on it and allow Trump to pivot fully to the general election.

There has been a decisive shift in the primary in Trump's favor which started a little over two weeks ago. He has outperformed dramatically since then, and that should be capped with an Indiana win in two days which hands him the nomination.

(05-01-2016 08:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There has been a decisive shift in the primary in Trump's favor which started a little over two weeks ago.

Yeah. I wonder what caused that though. Manafort? Trump's family town hall?

(probably Cruz's delegate shenanigan and Trump's hammering on it.)

(05-01-2016 08:58 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 08:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There has been a decisive shift in the primary in Trump's favor which started a little over two weeks ago.

Yeah. I wonder what caused that though? Manafort? Trump's family town hall?

Good question. I think a combination of things:

-- Manafort coming in and steadying the ship. He gave the campaign an immediate air of credibility and competence, and indicated that Trump has started campaigning as a frontrunner. Voters wanted to get that sense. There have been far fewer blunders since then, in fact I can't really think of any.

-- Trump's argument about the delegate machinations in Colorado and elsewhere. He convinced voters that Cruz was trying to get the nomination by underhanded methods, rather than by actually winning votes. The argument worked.

-- That family town hall. It was Trump's best event of the entire campaign and was probably worth a few points (or more) all by itself. You could see people being converted in real time. They'd heard all sorts of bad things about Trump's character but they saw that town hall and realized, wait, the guy's been a great father and raised five incredibly successful children who all love and respect him. That counts for a LOT with normal people, as well it should.

That new poll seems to confirm reports from the internal polling in the Trump and Cruz campaigns.

I don't think it's terribly optimistic at all.

@Liberty Sea: I wrote an autopsy on the Cruz campaign if you'd like to see my take on it.

Short version: He gave up operations and strategy, stuck to tactics, and his tactics had bad optics which seemed to show that he's "just another politician."

This evaporated his brand (as a "true conservative"™ who's fought the establishment) and his anti-establishment offer.

In essence, the bedrock of his campaign.

Edit: Yes, that town hall was brilliant. He definitely needs to do that in swing states for the general.

   



Available on Taobao, the Chinese ebay.

Every movie I see now, where there's a threat to the president and Secret Service tackles and piles on the president or rushes the POTUS out of the venue, plays out so much differently in my mind with a Trump presidency..

(Threat reveals itself and begins attacking)

Agent 1: (firing at threat) "Mr. President, we need to get you to.."
President Trump: (leans around corner, fires four shots at threat, and returns to cover)
Agent 2: "Please, Mr. President, we need to secure.."
President Trump: (quickly peeks around corner, returns five shots at threat)
Agent 2: "Sir, it's imperative that we.."
President Trump: (lays on ground sideways, fires five shots at threat)
Agent 1: "Mr. President, you're in danger right now.."
President Trump: (ejects magazine from handgun, pulls full magazine from waistband, loads into pistol, returns fire)

(Threat neutralized)

(05-01-2016 09:07 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 08:58 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 08:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  There has been a decisive shift in the primary in Trump's favor which started a little over two weeks ago.

Yeah. I wonder what caused that though? Manafort? Trump's family town hall?

Good question. I think a combination of things:

-- Manafort coming in and steadying the ship. He gave the campaign an immediate air of credibility and competence, and indicated that Trump has started campaigning as a frontrunner. Voters wanted to get that sense. There have been far fewer blunders since then, in fact I can't really think of any.

-- Trump's argument about the delegate machinations in Colorado and elsewhere. He convinced voters that Cruz was trying to get the nomination by underhanded methods, rather than by actually winning votes. The argument worked.

-- That family town hall. It was Trump's best event of the entire campaign and was probably worth a few points (or more) all by itself. You could see people being converted in real time. They'd heard all sorts of bad things about Trump's character but they saw that town hall and realized, wait, the guy's been a great father and raised five incredibly successful children who all love and respect him. That counts for a LOT with normal people, as well it should.

His family is such a powerful asset, Trump should use it as much as possible.

(05-01-2016 09:08 AM)Libertas Wrote:  Edit: Yes, that town hall was brilliant. He definitely needs to do that in swing states for the general.

The thing about family town hall is that you can't repeat it often. Maybe two or three times, but more than that and it will seems staged and insincere. He definitely should do it a couple of times more, however.

Quote:@Liberty Sea: I wrote an autopsy on the Cruz campaign if you'd like to see my take on it.

Nice one.

538 just changed Trump's odd of winning Indiana from 35% to 69%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/elec...epublican/

Probably due to the NBC poll. Without it Trump's chance would remain at 35% for them. It shows how dependent on polls they are. They would look at poll numbers and play with their calculator rather than talking with real voters, browsing social media and reading the political atmosphere, not to mention doing marketing psychological analysis. It doesn't sound scientific, right?
And anti-Trump bias. If Trump only leads 2-3 points, they will have his chance at 35%.

(05-01-2016 09:41 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  538 just changed Trump's odd of winning Indiana from 35% to 69%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/elec...epublican/

Probably due to the NBC poll. Without it Trump's chance would remain at 35% for them. It shows how dependent on polls they are. They would look at poll numbers and play with their calculator rather than talking with real voters, browsing social media and reading the political atmosphere.

Well, yes, it's a polls-based system so the odds change as new polls come in (particularly polls with a decent track record that get a high weight in the average). That is, as they say, a feature not a bug.

There are plenty of other places you can go to for general commentary. In fact, I would say just the opposite: I wish 538 were more about "just the numbers, Ma'am" -- something in which they do have some competence -- and less about generic rumination and speculation where they are no better than anyone else, and moreover clearly subject to systematic biases in their thinking.

If I ran a site like that, I would never engage in any kind of worthless speculation and I would let the numbers speak for themselves, only using natural language posts to clarify and provide insight into what the numbers are saying, and spending the rest of my time improving and tightening the models.

(05-01-2016 09:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Well, yes, it's a polls-based system so the odds change as new polls come in (particularly polls with a decent track record that get a high weight in the average). That is, as they say, a feature not a bug.

There are plenty of other places you can go to for general commentary. In fact, I would say just the opposite: I wish 538 were more about "just the numbers, Ma'am" -- something in which they do have some competence -- and less about generic rumination and speculation where they are no better than anyone else, and moreover clearly subject to systematic biases in their thinking.

If I ran a site like that, I would never engage in any kind of worthless speculation and I would let the numbers speak for themselves, only using natural language posts to clarify and provide insight into what the numbers are saying, and spending the rest of my time improving and tightening the models.

I was about to agree but then I remember that they're not strictly "just the number, ma'am" either. Pre-NBC poll, the average RCP Indiana polling has Trump leading by 2-3 points yet 538 put Trump at 35% odd, after strong showing in Tuesday and all. Were they basing that on the obscure aberrant IPFW/Downs Center polls conducted before Tuesday or what? I'm for "Just the number, ma'am", but there's some serious problem with their model. It's a problem if they just just base their forecasting on the latest poll released, or if they let one single poll change the odds that dramatically.
(NBC/WSJ does not have a strong track record and consistently underestimate Trump, mind you.)




Furthermore Nate Silvers has been saying Trump won't get the nomination (or had a very very low chance at it) for a long, long time, despite Trump continuously leading in the polls everywhere. There are clearly extra-numerical biases there. They also do generic commentary, and terribly.

Vox Day has a great quote that someone should've considered before positing, "The pundits say the voters are stupid. Trump says he loves them. And the pundits are legitimately shocked that Trump is winning."

(05-01-2016 10:11 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Well, yes, it's a polls-based system so the odds change as new polls come in (particularly polls with a decent track record that get a high weight in the average). That is, as they say, a feature not a bug.

There are plenty of other places you can go to for general commentary. In fact, I would say just the opposite: I wish 538 were more about "just the numbers, Ma'am" -- something in which they do have some competence -- and less about generic rumination and speculation where they are no better than anyone else, and moreover clearly subject to systematic biases in their thinking.

If I ran a site like that, I would never engage in any kind of worthless speculation and I would let the numbers speak for themselves, only using natural language posts to clarify and provide insight into what the numbers are saying, and spending the rest of my time improving and tightening the models.

I was about to agree but then I remember that they're not strictly "just the number, ma'am" either. Pre-NBC poll, the average RCP Indiana polling has Trump leads 2-3 points and they put Trump at 35% odd, after strong showing in Tuesday and all. Were they basing that on the obscure aberrant IPFW/Downs Center polls conducted before Tuesday or what? I'm for "Just the number, ma'am", but there's some serious problem with their model. It's a problem if they just just base their forecasting on the latest poll released, or if they let one single poll change the odds that dramatically. NBC/WSJ does not have a strong track record and consistently underestimate Trump, mind you.


Furthermore Nate Silvers has been saying Trump won't get the nomination for a long, long time, despite him continuously leading in the poll everywhere. There are clearly extra-numerical bias there.

A few things:

First, as far as the odds you're seeing, they have two different models, a "polls-plus" model and a "polls-only" model. The polls-only is just what the name implies, based on a weighted average of the polls. "Polls-plus" is based on two additional factors: endorsements, and the difference between a candidate's polls in a given state and nationally. Both of these factors have historically had some predictive value. In this primary cycle, the polls-plus model has performed about as well as the polls-only model, or a little better.

The numbers you're quoting are from the "polls-plus" model. That model had Cruz as a slight favorite over Trump in IN before today's Marist poll because Trump trails Cruz in endorsements, and because his polls in Indiana are weaker than his polls nationally (and conversely Cruz's polls in Indiana are stronger than his polls nationally). You can quibble with the model but it is "just the numbers" in both cases, with the difference being that polls-plus uses more numbers and different kinds of numbers.

As far as Nate's speculative posts about Trump throughout the cycle, this is precisely the sort of thing I said I wish they did less of, or not at all. But those posts don't influence the model's predictions.

(05-01-2016 10:23 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  A few things:

First, as far as the odds you're seeing, they have two different models, a "polls-plus" model and a "polls-only" model. The polls-only is just what the name implies, based on a weighted average of the polls. "Polls-plus" is based on two additional factors: endorsements, and the difference between a candidate's polls in a given state and nationally. Both of these factors have historically had some predictive value. In this primary cycle, the polls-plus model has performed about as well as the polls-only model, or a little better.

The numbers you're quoting are from the "polls-plus" model. That model had Cruz as a slight favorite over Trump in IN before today's Marist poll because Trump trails Cruz in endorsements, and because his polls in Indiana are weaker than his polls nationally (and conversely Cruz's polls in Indiana are stronger than his polls nationally). You can quibble with the model but it is "just the numbers" in both cases, with the difference being that polls-plus uses more numbers and different kinds of numbers.

As far as Nate's speculative posts about Trump throughout the cycle, this is precisely the sort of thing I said I wish they did less of, or not at all. But those posts don't influence the model's predictions.

Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I learned a lot from this exchange. Your knowledge in this field clearly far surpasses mine.

(05-01-2016 10:23 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 10:11 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(05-01-2016 09:52 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Well, yes, it's a polls-based system so the odds change as new polls come in (particularly polls with a decent track record that get a high weight in the average). That is, as they say, a feature not a bug.

There are plenty of other places you can go to for general commentary. In fact, I would say just the opposite: I wish 538 were more about "just the numbers, Ma'am" -- something in which they do have some competence -- and less about generic rumination and speculation where they are no better than anyone else, and moreover clearly subject to systematic biases in their thinking.

If I ran a site like that, I would never engage in any kind of worthless speculation and I would let the numbers speak for themselves, only using natural language posts to clarify and provide insight into what the numbers are saying, and spending the rest of my time improving and tightening the models.

I was about to agree but then I remember that they're not strictly "just the number, ma'am" either. Pre-NBC poll, the average RCP Indiana polling has Trump leads 2-3 points and they put Trump at 35% odd, after strong showing in Tuesday and all. Were they basing that on the obscure aberrant IPFW/Downs Center polls conducted before Tuesday or what? I'm for "Just the number, ma'am", but there's some serious problem with their model. It's a problem if they just just base their forecasting on the latest poll released, or if they let one single poll change the odds that dramatically. NBC/WSJ does not have a strong track record and consistently underestimate Trump, mind you.


Furthermore Nate Silvers has been saying Trump won't get the nomination for a long, long time, despite him continuously leading in the poll everywhere. There are clearly extra-numerical bias there.

A few things:

First, as far as the odds you're seeing, they have two different models, a "polls-plus" model and a "polls-only" model. The polls-only is just what the name implies, based on a weighted average of the polls. "Polls-plus" is based on two additional factors: endorsements, and the difference between a candidate's polls in a given state and nationally. Both of these factors have historically had some predictive value. In this primary cycle, the polls-plus model has performed about as well as the polls-only model, or a little better.

The numbers you're quoting are from the "polls-plus" model. That model had Cruz as a slight favorite over Trump in IN before today's Marist poll because Trump trails Cruz in endorsements, and because his polls in Indiana are weaker than his polls nationally (and conversely Cruz's polls in Indiana are stronger than his polls nationally). You can quibble with the model but it is "just the numbers" in both cases, with the difference being that polls-plus uses more numbers and different kinds of numbers.

As far as Nate's speculative posts about Trump throughout the cycle, this is precisely the sort of thing I said I wish they did less of, or not at all. But those posts don't influence the model's predictions.

   

https:[email protected]/hilla....ju95mcau0

Crooked Hillary.

(A wide look at voting fraud in her favor regarding the discrepancy between the exit polling and her results.)

Trump could run wild with this.

RVF Trump thread statistics as of the end of April 2016.





Significant downturn in energy due to fewer primaries, and perhaps also a collective sense that Trump has this nomination in the bag.

https://twitter.com/BSVLMJ/status/726877885890334720

Could you imagine if Trump sent his private security team to capture Soros and turn him over to Putin? That would make for a great movie! Like when Batman kidnaps that Chinese businessman in "The Dark Knight".

Libertas, that is a great article. This entire primary season, I have always wondered how it was possible for news organizations to call an election for one of the candidates when only like 1% of the votes are in and the polls just closed. The answer: exit polls. I hate to say it, but expect huge amounts of election fraud in November in the swing states.

How is it possible to even rig an election in this day and age? Don't we have the tools to come up with a ballot system that can't be hacked?