Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL's relentless angst toward the POTUS is duly noted...

...now STFU...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Roy Moore's Communications Director has resigned

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/361580-communications-director-for-roy-moore-campaign-resigns

[Kapture1]

To quote Talent: You're insane.

* Trump's one of the most unpopular Presidents ever.

*His approval ratings are the worst of any President since FDR for a President in his first year in office.

*The generic Dem ballot is running about 9 points better than the generic Republican ballot right now

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

* Going back all the way to 1910 there have been only THREE TIMES that the President's Party gained House seats in the midterm elections: 1934 (FDR), 1998 (Clinton), and 2002 (Dubya). And both 1998 and 2002 had unusual circumstances: iin 1998 the voters were mad at the R's for spending so much time on Impeachment. In 2002 there was still a lot of patriotic spillover from 9/11 and Bush's approval rating was still riding high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election

So predicting the Republicans to do great in 2018 is a kind of historical ignorance mixed with yuge overconfidence in Trump's popularity. There have been other signs in the 2017 elections that things may not go as you predict.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-overperforming-in-special-elections-almost-everywhere/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...crats-in-2018/

didn't Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight give Hillary an 80% chance of winning last Nov?

[Dr. Strangelove]

didn't Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight give Hillary an 80% chance of winning last Nov?

Rasmussen predicted Romney would win his election, yet you recently touted them as the most trusted pollster around.

[froot loops]

didn't Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight give Hillary an 80% chance of winning last Nov?

No

[Kapture1]

No

Final 2016 election forcast from 538, 71.4%.


I was thinking about this clip

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f_lXPcschU"]Nate Silver Predicts Clinton Wins Election Against Trump - YouTube[/ame]

[froot loops]

So I was right

[froot loops]

If the polling is similar to what it is in October, they will not gain seats.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Happy Turkey Day to all you boneheads...and also to the conservatives here as well...

[Kapture1]

So I was right

you were right what? that he gave her a 79% chance, not 80% chance? congratulations, you were right.

[froot loops]

you were right what? that he gave her a 79% chance, not 80% chance? congratulations, you were right.

You just said 71.4 percent, now you say 79 percent? Get your story straight.

[WM Wolverine]

His role model doesn't care about facts either.

[Da Geezer]

Hey, sure, the Dems failed to get a law passed. Just enough of them broke off from the party line to kill multiple bills. The Republicans have never had the slightest bit of interest in a law.

Ummm, ok. But that's how, you know, the government works. It was Obama SOP -- can't pass shit through the actual legislative process, so it's Executive Branch to the rescue. Well, that shit is fleeting. I don't have much sympathy for any authority overreach reg that gets fucked.

So everyone is clear, "net neutrality" was rejected by the Congress of the United States. Net neutrality is NOT "the law" in the US. It is an executive rule that is an unlawful usurpation of the Legislative Branch's constitutional authority. As Talent says, it is something that could not be passed and had to be instituted unconstitutionally.

Then those who always want equality of outcome argue that this is one of the best industries we have and let's not fool with something that is working, so let's keep the Government involved. What we know to be true as a general principle is that the more government intervention or "rulemaking" involved, the less accurate the allocation of resources. Put another way, the free market has, in all times and in all places, optimized the allocation of resources and produced the most good for the most people.

I have simply stated a fact: autonomous autos are expected to need substantially more and quicker data transfer than is required on a cell phone. IF, that turns out to be true, why should we regulate those companies that may want to provide such a service and tell them they can't do it? The current law in the US allows this kind of innovation. The Obama-era lawlessness tried to prohibit it. If you progs want everyone to have an equality of outcome, then pass a law to make it so.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Government knows best...not business...you silly boy...

[froot loops]

Still clueless on the computers, keeps on repeating the driverless cars nonsense.