Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:49 am

Xan wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:26 am

sophie wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:15 amVinny, that's because there has been a concerted effort to condition you to instantly label anyone who says anything even remotely positive about Trump as a Trump die-hard fanatic deplorable probably KKK member/Nazi sympathizer/white supremacist etc.

That's a pretty good guess as to the reason, because it certainly isn't true. One or two die-hard supporters is probably fair to say.

I would agree.

Vinny, why don't you tell us who here you think is a die-hard Trump fan and then let them respond?

Maybe. Have to think about that and whether anything positive comes from that.

Vinny

MangoMan wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 7:00 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:37 pm
I predict that Biden won't be the nominee. The most likely way they will fix it is to pick someone else at the convention.
Anyone want to guess who it's going to be? Hint: initials are HRC.

This has been mentioned before on this board. I just don't see how HRC can be the nominee when she didn't participate in the primaries. Same for Cuomo. Please explain how this can be rationalized without, say, Bernie or Warren supporters' heads exploding.

Biden isn't going to get the Bernie baby votes anyway.
Same with Warren's supporters, whoever they may be.
The DNC cheated Bernie last time and they'll cheat Biden, Bernie and Warren this time.
After all, it's not like they care about democracy!

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:55 am

Simonjester wrote: polling
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... polls.html

That is excellent.
I'm still predicting Trump, and Republicans in general, win in a landslide in November, if nothing else goes seriously wrong before then.

I think (and hope) Trump will win in November also. Not because I'm a huge Trump supporter, but just because Democrats big government ideas are stupid. And yeah the identity politics is infuriating.

However, your statement above, Libertarian666, made me laugh. "If nothing else goes seriously wrong"? What else could go more seriously wrong than this COVID-19 nightmare?

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:09 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:55 am

Simonjester wrote: polling
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... polls.html

That is excellent.
I'm still predicting Trump, and Republicans in general, win in a landslide in November, if nothing else goes seriously wrong before then.

I think (and hope) Trump will win in November also. Not because I'm a huge Trump supporter, but just because Democrats big government ideas are stupid. And yeah the identity politics is infuriating.

However, your statement above, Libertarian666, made me laugh. "If nothing else goes seriously wrong"? What else could go more seriously wrong than this COVID-19 nightmare?

Trump seems to me to be itching to start up his Cold War with China again... his aggressive actions against China and other countries have been very unpopular in aggregate for his entire presidency, and starting that non-sense back up again could prove to be a very bitter icing to top the COVID-19 cake.

Unpopular with whom?

They are very popular with me. Why should we be friends with a totalitarian regime that steals all of our best ideas and jobs?

And where did COVID start anyway?

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 1:23 pm Unpopular with whom?

They are very popular with me. Why should we be friends with a totalitarian regime that steals all of our best ideas and jobs?

And where did COVID start anyway?

Unpopular with the general public in aggregate, as I stated in the original post. Trump's approval ratings were the worst during the times he was most aggressive with China and other countries. You can also look at how the stock market behaved during those times as to another clue that the general public did not like the policy. Obviously, the minority which is Trump's core like it, but the majority finds Trump's stance on China and trade in general as very unpopular. There is a reason why Trump capitulated and put the trade war on pause last year before the election year started up. He knew that if he kept it up it would cost him the election. So he has tried to put it on the back burner until he inevitably starts it back up after the election if he wins. But he seems like he just can't help himself. My biggest fear with Trump is that if he does get re-elected we will wind up not just in a trade-war with China, but in a real war with them. Globalization and inter-dependence ensures peace. If we sever these ties, there's nothing to stop both sides from devolving into physical war, especially with how aggressive Trump's speech and actions are. He is poking the bear every chance he gets.

General Election: Trump vs. Biden- Harvard-Harris- Biden 53, Trump 47- Biden +6
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden- Civiqs- Biden 48, Trump 47- Biden +1
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden- OH Predictive Insights- Biden 50, Trump 43- Biden +7
Virginia: Trump vs. Biden- Roanoke College- Biden 51, Trump 39- Biden +12
Tennessee: Trump vs. Biden- East Tennessee State- Trump 53-, Biden 36 Trump +17

Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?

If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:33 pm Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?

If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?

Very little. The 2016 polls generally had Clinton up by 1-2% nationally. And they were more or less accurate. She won the popular vote. The polls also had Hillary up by very narrow margins in most of the swing states. They turned out to be wrong and Trump won most of them, by very narrow margins. The takeaway is not that the polls were wrong. Trump's upset victories were almost all within the margin of error for the respective polls. The take away is that in a really close election, turn out matters. Trump's people turned out, and Clinton's by and large did not. The margin of error varies a bit and I do factor in that Trump supporters are not always accurately reflected in some polls, so I build in another 1% when I look at these numbers. But generally any poll that is from a reputable source and that has a margin of 5% or higher, is almost certainly outside the statistical margin of error. I colored Georgia purple because a 1% margin for Biden in a traditionally conservative state is obviously too close to call that state. And barring some kind of Trump meltdown, I fully expect him to take Georgia in November. But the fact that multiple polls are suggesting a reliably Republican state like Georgia is within the margin of error, does not bode well for team Trump. Even more worrisome is that a lot of states that Trump took on 2016, and he will need in November are polling for Biden by numbers that are way outside the margin of error. The election is still 5+ months away and that is a long while. But as I noted in an earlier comment, if the election were today, with these numbers, I'd borrow money from the mob to bet on a Biden victory.

FWIW though I think Biden has benefited from his enforced isolation. Trump has the misfortune of not being able to stay off the stage and keeping his mouth shut. (Not that I think he would in any event.) As POTUS he is our leader, for good or ill, in a time of national emergency. And with his endless flubs, mistakes, and outright lies, being put under the proverbial spotlight, Biden just by not being Trump, is starting to look pretty good. But I do expect the polls to tighten between now and November.

Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?

https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1

The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes

I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?

Vinny

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?

https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1

The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes

I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?

Vinny

Nixon?

Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:47 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?

https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1

The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes

I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?

Vinny

Nixon?

On a quick Bing search I could find no evidence of that.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 7:04 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 3:33 pm Didn’t the polls going into the 2016 election suggest that Trump was going to lose, yet he won, suggesting that a lot of poll participants may have been embarrassed or just unwilling to openly admit that they planned to vote for Trump?

If so, what does that imply about these polls for the 2020 election?

I'm sure that 4 years of nonstop demonizing of Trump and anyone who supports him by the lamestream media wouldn't make anyone leery of admitting that they are planning to vote for him.

That's definitely a thing. I know a number of people quietly planning to vote for Trump (and here in Manhattan, no less) but who would never admit it publicly - because they want to keep their social status and jobs/clients. Many of them are not in the classic Trump demographic, e.g. a retired woman with a state pension and liberal social views, a young gay hairstylist, the local neighborhood dog walker/cat sitter.

I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:26 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:38 pm Another piece of evidence supporting Trump's landslide 2020 re-election?

https://t.co/j4in1NpRm9?amp=1

The Commander in Chief’s Following Wanes

I repeat my postulation that he has gained no new voters and has lost many who prior voted him. NOT a good sign when a Republican loses military support? What is the last Republican president to which this has happened?

Vinny

You should have mentioned that this was from The New York Times. They will say or do anything to stop Trump from being re-elected.

If a NYT article said there were 50 states, I would confirm that with a more reliable source.

Even a recent CNN poll shows Trump crushing Biden in the battleground states: https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/sta ... 0289727490.

If CNN says he's way ahead, you can count on his being at least that far ahead. As CNN is also extremely biased against Trump, any good news they report for him is something they just can't figure out how to ignore.

Except it was an Opinion piece in the New York Times. Not an article written by someone on their staff. And, it did cite plenty of survey results from a survey independent from the New York Times.

But you are free to maintain your own set of biases.

Vinny

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am

I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.

This was an exact sample of one?

And, this one could have been an outlier?

In other words, if we had ten similar elections then, maybe, it would have averaged out to half the states going each way.

Vinny

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:23 am

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am

I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.

This was an exact sample of one?

And, this one could have been an outlier?

In other words, if we had ten similar elections then, maybe, it would have averaged out to half the states going each way.

Vinny

Vinny, last I checked there were 50 states. If you're trying to counter what I said above please make a relevant argument?

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:28 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 8:23 am

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 7:39 am

I think this figured into the 2016 election and was probably greater than a 1% bump. Ad is right, the results were nearly all within the margin of error cited by the polls. However don't you find it interesting that the errors all went the same way? If it were truly all due to unbiased polling error, half the states (on average) should have gone the other way, and Clinton would have won. That's why she was projected as the winner with such confidence.

This was an exact sample of one?

And, this one could have been an outlier?

In other words, if we had ten similar elections then, maybe, it would have averaged out to half the states going each way.

Vinny

Vinny, last I checked there were 50 states. If you're trying to counter what I said above please make a relevant argument?

Yes, 50 states but still a sample of one of what occurred on the average with those 50 states.

Vinny

Nope. The polls in question were state-specific.

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 10:51 am Nope. The polls in question were state-specific.

I know that.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but am I correct that you basically wrote / said: Why did all the specific state polls end up going all one way rather than half of them going one way and the other half going the other way?

Is that what you said? If so, good question.

What I'm saying is that what you described occurred in ONE election. And, that if one examined how these specific state polls resulted in TEN similar election then maybe it would have averaged out to half and half rather the totally skewed results (as you pointed out) for the 2016 election. And, then, perhaps, 2016 would have been viewed as an outlier which does occur among overall average results.

Vinny

Did you ever take a probability class Vinnie?

Flip a fair coin 10 times and tell me what the chances are of all of them coming up heads.

But hey, it's just one session of coin flipping so that doesn't count right?

Unless you are saying that an event with a probability on the order of 0.01% (i.e 1/1024, which is the answer to the above question) is a completely expected result that in no way should indicate that anything is wrong?

Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.

I think he's forgotten what 2016 looked like. All we read was 12 months of articles telling us that Trump wouldn't win, right up to 5 minutes before the returns came in.

It won't be any different this time. I'm not saying for sure that Trump will win. But for sure, the media will tell us that he can't win because that's what they want us to believe. It's going to be a long 6 months especially if every single article gets linked from this forum.

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 5:05 pm [Vinny, ] Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/vinnys ... 1105803559

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 5:05 pm Did you ever take a probability class Vinnie?

Flip a fair coin 10 times and tell me what the chances are of all of them coming up heads.

But hey, it's just one session of coin flipping so that doesn't count right?

Unless you are saying that an event with a probability on the order of 0.01% (i.e 1/1024, which is the answer to the above question) is a completely expected result that in no way should indicate that anything is wrong?

Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.

I look at it as being similar to a baseball player's season with a lot of randomness. If a player hits .300 over 500 at bats that does not mean that for each of the ten slices of 50 at bats that compose that 500 at bat season he hits .300 on the nose for all those slices. Without doing any research on this, I'm guessing there could have been a 50 at bat slice where he hit .450 and another one where he hit .150. He was the same intrinsic .300 hitter for all the slices but those outlier slices are just the way the probabilities played out for those disparate outcome slices.

You seem to posit that there was no randomness to what happened in 2016. That what you seem to believe would only have occurred with a .01% probability if totally random, instead, happened for a reason. What is this reason? And, you'd hold that the same results would have resulted if the election had instead taken place on either of the five days leading up to the election or any of the five days after the actual election date?

Vinny

sophie wrote: ↑Wed May 20, 2020 5:05 pm Did you ever take a probability class Vinnie?

Flip a fair coin 10 times and tell me what the chances are of all of them coming up heads.

But hey, it's just one session of coin flipping so that doesn't count right?

Unless you are saying that an event with a probability on the order of 0.01% (i.e 1/1024, which is the answer to the above question) is a completely expected result that in no way should indicate that anything is wrong?

Whenever you'd like to join us here on planet Earth, we'll be here waiting.

I wouldn't hold my breath.
TDS is a debilitating disorder that renders otherwise sensible people blind to reality.