DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

ml1 said:

Even Nate Silver occasionally slips into fallacious arguments.

And as I noted above, the "New Deal" part of the Green New Deal is the important part.  In your argument you're conflating the wide ranging issues of the GND with the single issue of global warming.  They are related, but not the same thing.  

I found that Nate Silver quote on Twitter (was wondering why I hadn't seen it at 538).  And he's getting shellacked pretty well in the comments for his specious argument.


another more biting take:


Smedley said:

 You can disagree, but it’s hardly “obviously fallacious thinking”. Inslee was the one single-issue climate candidate. The GND is the biggest and most well-known climate proposal out there.  Surely there’s a correlation between how the two fare. It’s not 1.0 correlation but it’s not 0.0 either. 

Nate silver out this morning with this:

“Inslee, who could never improve on ~1% in the polls despite an intense focus on climate change, is a datapoint against the proposition that Democrats' votes are deeply motivated by policy concerns.

People will try to spin it differently but Inslee's lackluster performance is an obviously bearish indicator for the prioritization of climate change in Democratic politics.“

Is that “obviously fallacious thinking”?

 I tend to agree with Nate.

It's not the message, it's the messenger. 

Here's a candidate who, according to the article, is actually attracting former Trump voters and is "surging" despite his message being dark and his proposals rather odd:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/22/andrew-yang-2020-president-profile-227631


STANV said:

 I tend to agree with Nate.

It's not the message, it's the messenger. 

Here's a candidate who, according to the article, is actually attracting former Trump voters and is "surging" despite his message being dark and his proposals rather odd:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/22/andrew-yang-2020-president-profile-227631

I think Nate was saying that it WAS the message that was the problem.  I think Nate himself might have been exhibiting the Pundit's Fallacy.  


STANV said:


Here's a candidate who, according to the article, is actually attracting former Trump voters and is "surging" despite his message being dark and his proposals rather odd:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/22/andrew-yang-2020-president-profile-227631

 I am very much liking Yang.


Klinker said:

Yes.  Heaven forbid there be discussions and even arguments about policy and the direction of the party somewhere outside the smokey back rooms.  Lets just leave that sort of thing to Joey D and his big brothers at the national level. 

Never said there shouldn’t be argument or discussion, so thanks for ascribing positions again that I didn’t take.

I pointed out that the positionally moderate Clinton was argued about not because of enthusiasm or lack thereof. In my opinion, absent the Right wing vilification, the social media engagement back then for HC would have been pretty comparable to JB.

And pointing out that those at the extremes having more passion and therefore more social media engagement doesn’t necessarily translate into more votes seems pretty self intuitive.


Klinker said:

This article reenforces much of what  Nan was saying a day or two ago although they come at it from a different angle.

Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge

In essence, many if not most people who support Biden's candidacy are doing so because they think other people are doing the same.  Its a lemming effect that threatens to drive America over a cliff to its doom.

"over a cliff to its doom"? Really? What does that even mean? 


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

jamie said:

The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.

"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share."  Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past.  Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.

Trump is going to crush him over this.  Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.

     you pay for it by printing money.

    Exactly the same way the fed govt pays for everything now.

     Three letters: O M G 

     Please explain to me how the federal government pays for stuff.


    paulsurovell said:


    Two years ago the WSJ reported we had spent $5.6 trillion on Middle East wars. So that estimate is already higher.  And this is spending for nothing useful that has little multiplier effect in the economy like purchases for research, technology and infrastructure.

    How did we pay for $5.6 trillion-plus on death and destruction that made the world less safe?

     As I'm trying to explain to these people, the government "printed" money to pay for this.


    basil said:

    Klinker said:

    This article reenforces much of what  Nan was saying a day or two ago although they come at it from a different angle.

    Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge

    In essence, many if not most people who support Biden's candidacy are doing so because they think other people are doing the same.  Its a lemming effect that threatens to drive America over a cliff to its doom.

    "over a cliff to its doom"? Really? What does that even mean? 

     It means Biden can't win and, if he is the nominee we will have four more years of Trump.  

    Seriously, have you heard anything I have been saying for the last year?  Do the words "too old, too conservative and just too damn stupid" ring a bell cheese


    drummerboy said:

     As I'm trying to explain to these people, the government "printed" money to pay for this.

    They did no such thing. We are indebted for it. The GDP to debt ratio has doubled in the last 10 years or so. If there comes a point where the dollar is not the reserve currency, we are screwed.


    Klinker said:

     It means Biden can't win and, if he is the nominee we will have four more years of Trump.  

    Seriously, have you heard anything I have been saying for the last year?  Do the words "too old, too conservative and just too damn stupid" ring a bell
    cheese

    Oh I thought you meant Trump. But anyway, I don't think that 4 more years of Trump will bring the end of the world. It will set America back by quite a bit, and will therefore probably benefit, China, Europe, and possibly Russia. But why is that a bad thing? The world is better off with a balance of power, instead of a single superpower controlling everything. 


    jimmurphy said:

    They did no such thing. We are indebted for it. The GDP to debt ratio has doubled in the last 10 years or so. If there comes a point where the dollar is not the reserve currency, we are screwed.

     it's only a problem if we try to give people health coverage or affordable college.  If rich people want a tax cut, it's not a problem.


    ml1 said:


    I think there is a tendency on this message board for folks to engage in the Pundit's Fallacy, which is the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively.

     I'm still waiting for the candidate pledging to transition us to a parliamentary system and who will launch a program to buy back all the guns, melt them down into railroad tracks, then seize half the cars and melt those down into buses, light rail, and commuter rail.


    PVW said:

     I'm still waiting for the candidate pledging to transition us to a parliamentary system and who will launch a program to buy back all the guns, melt them down into railroad tracks, then seize half the cars and melt those down into buses, light rail, and commuter rail.

    And then buy Greenland and melt all the ice and give the water to the people of Newark?


    basil said:

    PVW said:

     I'm still waiting for the candidate pledging to transition us to a parliamentary system and who will launch a program to buy back all the guns, melt them down into railroad tracks, then seize half the cars and melt those down into buses, light rail, and commuter rail.

    And then buy Greenland and melt all the ice and give the water to the people of Newark?

     Nah, just pass a law saying every town in a county has to use the same water source. Short Hills, Essex Fells, etc will make sure the water supply issue gets fixed right quick.


    basil said:

    But anyway, I don't think that 4 more years of Trump will bring the end of the world. It will set America back by quite a bit, and will therefore probably benefit, China, Europe, and possibly Russia. But why is that a bad thing? The world is better off with a balance of power, instead of a single superpower controlling everything. 

     What makes you think Trump and the Trumpists will leave after another 4 years?  If we lose this election, it will be the last election.


    nan said:

     New entry:  https://twitter.com/hamiltonnolan/status/1163942926050832385

    Here is the video: https://twitter.com/banditelli/status/1163957476762370049

    The Biden Gaff-o-Meter (08/20/2019 edition)

    • Can't remember the name of his own website
    • Said the last two major mass shootings were in different locations.
    • Keeps calling Teresa May, Margaret Thatcher
    • "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"
    • "We choose truth over facts!"
    • "those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president."
    • undocumented immigrants need to "get in line" and we are right to "cherry-pick" the best
    • "There's an awful lot of really good Republicans out there."
    • "When Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King were assassinated, in the 70s—in the late 70s.”


    Joe Biden thanks his longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life.

    https://twitter.com/BetaODork/status/1164553547960246272

    The Biden Gaff-o-Meter (08/23/2019 edition)

    • Can't remember the name of his own website
    • Said the last two major mass shootings were in different locations.
    • Keeps calling Teresa May, Margaret Thatcher
    • "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids"
    • "We choose truth over facts!"
    • "those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president."
    • undocumented immigrants need to "get in line" and we are right to "cherry-pick" the best
    • "There's an awful lot of really good Republicans out there."
    • "When Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King were assassinated, in the 70s—in the late 70s.”
    • "My longfriend timefriend who's a friend and has been a friend in and out of public life."


    basil said:

    Oh I thought you meant Trump. 

    I was talking about Trump because a vote for Biden is a vote for Trump.  Biden is the one candidate who has no hope whatsoever of winning the General in 2020.  The Dems would be better off nominating anyone else, even Klobberchowder.


    jimmurphy said:

    drummerboy said:

     As I'm trying to explain to these people, the government "printed" money to pay for this.

    They did no such thing. We are indebted for it. The GDP to debt ratio has doubled in the last 10 years or so. If there comes a point where the dollar is not the reserve currency, we are screwed.

    ha ha ha ha

    Where did the money come from to pay for the Iraq war? It wasn't even in the damn budget.

    Where did the gazillions of dollars come from for the Fed's "quantitative easing" after the 2008 crash? Do you remember a Congressional appropriation for that?

    America's understanding of how the economy actually works is dismal (heh). Hell, they still like to compare their household budget to the Federal govt's budget.

    It's all wrong.


    nohero said:

    Bernie's plan reads as if it was written by someone with no clue about the business of electricity generation and transmission - or for that matter what current (no pun intended) efforts are now under

     What language in the plan leads you to this conclusion?


    Did Joe Biden worry about the costs when he voted to invade Iraq?



    paulsurovell said:

    nohero said:

    Bernie's plan reads as if it was written by someone with no clue about the business of electricity generation and transmission - or for that matter what current (no pun intended) efforts are now under

     What language in the plan leads you to this conclusion?

    It's not the language, it's the concepts.

    If you like, you can post how the concepts in his plan do address how the business of electricity generation and transmission is conducted, and how it takes into account current efforts.


    Meanwhile, Seth we hardly knew ye.

    (If you need a link, that's the point.)


    ml1 said:

     it's only a problem if we try to give people health coverage or affordable college.  If rich people want a tax cut, it's not a problem.

    I didn’t say that, of course. To be clear, I’d favor a return to the taxing regime adopted after WWII, with much higher marginal rates.


    jimmurphy said:

    I didn’t say that, of course. To be clear, I’d favor a return to the taxing regime adopted after WWII, with much higher marginal rates.

    I didn't mean that you did.  But the current GOP is very predictable on this (as well as the majority of pundits it seems).  According to them, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to pay for "Medicare for all."  But a tax cut?  Military budget increase?  There's unlimited ability to pay for those policies.


    Wholeheartedly agree with that.


    jimmurphy said:

    drummerboy said:

     As I'm trying to explain to these people, the government "printed" money to pay for this.

    They did no such thing. We are indebted for it. The GDP to debt ratio has doubled in the last 10 years or so. If there comes a point where the dollar is not the reserve currency, we are screwed.

     +10


    nohero said:

    paulsurovell said:

    nohero said:

    Bernie's plan reads as if it was written by someone with no clue about the business of electricity generation and transmission - or for that matter what current (no pun intended) efforts are now under

     What language in the plan leads you to this conclusion?

    It's not the language, it's the concepts.

    If you like, you can post how the concepts in his plan do address how the business of electricity generation and transmission is conducted, and how it takes into account current efforts.

    The "concepts" of Bernie's plan call for all electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2050 and for the transmission of that electricity to be handled by a smart grid.

    How does this conflict with "how the business of electricity and transmission is conducted"?

    FYI, here's more detail about the viability of these "concepts": http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf


    ml1 said:

    I think Nate was saying that it WAS the message that was the problem.  I think Nate himself might have been exhibiting the Pundit's Fallacy.  

     When he stops being a statistitian and tries to be a pundit that can certainly happen.


    In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

    Latest Jobs

    Employment Wanted

    Lessons/Instruction

    Sponsored Business

    Find Business

    Advertisement

    Advertise here!