Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.what dreams said:
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
And I look beautiful.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
Obama briefly dropped by Eddie's house in the middle of the day once kind of as a neighborly courtesy call, since they vacation in the same neighborhood. That is not "spending part of New Years Eve with Obama".mrussel1 said:
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.what dreams said:
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:
Anyway, I suspect that Eddie will support Hillary. He supported Obama wholeheartedly, so I see no reason why he wouldn't give his support to Hillary on some level. I think the days when he really gets loud about it are over though. I don't think he is in love with where he lays his political support now. I think he is just a moderate now. He is making the safer choices when he feels he needs to. I think he learned his own lessons after supporting Nader the way he did. I think he will now specifically try not to support splitting the left. He's said that that was ultimately a mistake back when GW won again. Obviously I agree with that, given who the current alternative winner is.
(Not that any of this matters, lol. Just saying, since it was brought up).Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Obama, Biden and Bill Clinton have no heft. You must be kidding yourself. You may not agree with them, but they are not lightweights.BS44325 said:
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.
Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
If you were honest you would have rebutted Jearlpam's initial insinuation that anybody on here said (and I paraphrase) "Since Nate SIlver was wrong once then he will always be wrong". That was not said.PJ_Soul said:BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early. Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that. 0 -
granola bars0
-
Right, I did not choose to comment on that. I didn't feel any desire to. Still don't.BS44325 said:
If you were honest you would have rebutted Jearlpam's initial insinuation that anybody on here said (and I paraphrase) "Since Nate SIlver was wrong once then he will always be wrong". That was not said.PJ_Soul said:BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in an:cy other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early. Not "pounding away" at all. Has nothing to do with politics. It was an honest comment on my part. You do tend to do that. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.mrussel1 said:
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?BS44325 said:
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.mrussel1 said:
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
100%. As an aside...being from Toronto we had a massive rivalry with the Detroit Tigers in the 1980's. My dad would take us to old exhibition stadium to see the Jay's play the Tigers in late September. In 87 the jays were up about 3 games over the Tigers with maybe only 8 remaining and had an epic collapse to blow the division. At the time former Jay Doyle Alexander was pitching for the Tigers and we would bring tinfoil to the park and chant "Foil Doyle'. It never worked. He went like 8-0 down the stretch to help Detroit win the division. Massive sore spot in my life.mrussel1 said:
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?BS44325 said:
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.mrussel1 said:
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
That's good background. I remember Doyle Alexander pretty clearly. I don't remember the "Foil" nickname, but now it makes sense. So GFY.BS44325 said:
100%. As an aside...being from Toronto we had a massive rivalry with the Detroit Tigers in the 1980's. My dad would take us to old exhibition stadium to see the Jay's play the Tigers in late September. In 87 the jays were up about 3 games over the Tigers with maybe only 8 remaining and had an epic collapse to blow the division. At the time former Jay Doyle Alexander was pitching for the Tigers and we would bring tinfoil to the park and chant "Foil Doyle'. It never worked. He went like 8-0 down the stretch to help Detroit win the division. Massive sore spot in my life.mrussel1 said:
So when I say GFY,FA you'll know what I mean. Just kidding you. Seriously though, if there wasn't a conservative or two active here, I'd probably leave. What fun is it hanging out with people you agree with?BS44325 said:
I remember and based on this I want to be known from here on out as Foil Alexander.mrussel1 said:
Well we need foils on the board. Remember you are the long relief, bringing the chin music. We can't just be an echo chamber. This isn't Breitbart or a Bernie Sanders reddit page.BS44325 said:
HA. You are all amazing. I don't see how Jearlpam's post can be interpreted in any other way. I get it though...must keep pounding away at the conservatives on here.PJ_Soul said:
It's a valid point to be making for sure. BS, you have a habit of doing that. I'm sure you consider yourself very insightful and everything, but sometimes you really make too many assumptions about how people you don't know think and feel.mrussel1 said:
Negative... I'm just giving you a mirror to look into...BS44325 said:
Ahhhh...I see you are taking advantage of the Hillary/Comey defencemrussel1 said:
Did you just invent the poster's motivation for the statement?BS44325 said:
I don't disagree. You are missing the point of my response. You have claimed that somebody is using the logic "that since he was wrong a couple of times then he must be wrong from here on out." Nobody has made that statement. You invented and projected that attitude onto others just to feel superior. You make yourself the sane one in the "insane world".Jearlpam0925 said:
Who said he's infallible? He still has the most reasonable, comprehensive forecasts out there.BS44325 said:
That isn't the logic being presented. The logic is that even Nate Silver is not infallible. By thinking he's infallible you are tempting fate instead.Jearlpam0925 said:
This is what I love - a guy is wrong once in a while, so then the obvious logic is he'll be wrong every step of the way going forward.Gern Blansten said:
Yeah he ignored his model.BS44325 said:
Nate Silver was already wrong on Trump once...Kat said:Nate Silver out-forecast almost everyone last time. I'm keeping an eye on him and his analysis again this time. Secretary Clinton took a hit but I think she'll rebound because she has the policies.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
We live in an insane world.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Forecast has been adjusted and can be adjusted in either direction as the days and months move on. It is early.0 -
Except he did it on Dec 31st, so that would mean he spent part of the New Year’s Eve. JeeshPJ_Soul said:
Obama briefly dropped by Eddie's house in the middle of the day once kind of as a neighborly courtesy call, since they vacation in the same neighborhood. That is not "spending part of New Years Eve with Obama".mrussel1 said:
Oh yeah? In Hawaii I'm guessing. That would have been quite interesting. It also brings up a good point. I wonder if EV, Bruce, JZ and other artists will get involved in this campaign. I would imagine so.what dreams said:
Yeah, I mean, Eddie Vedder spent part of New Years Eve with Obama. What was he thinking?mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:
Anyway, I suspect that Eddie will support Hillary. He supported Obama wholeheartedly, so I see no reason why he wouldn't give his support to Hillary on some level. I think the days when he really gets loud about it are over though. I don't think he is in love with where he lays his political support now. I think he is just a moderate now. He is making the safer choices when he feels he needs to. I think he learned his own lessons after supporting Nader the way he did. I think he will now specifically try not to support splitting the left. He's said that that was ultimately a mistake back when GW won again. Obviously I agree with that, given who the current alternative winner is.
(Not that any of this matters, lol. Just saying, since it was brought up).0 -
Bill Clinton was a Rhode's Scholar in Economics. I'd love to see the intellectual heft of your resume compared to anyone's on that list.BS44325 said:
It might be a nice list of elitist résumés but there is absolutely nobody on that list with any intellectual heft. It's "yes we can" being replaced with "I'm with her". That's the democratic convention in a nutshell.mrussel1 said:
Yes... alas both parties can't have intellectual powerhouses like Trump, Bobby Knight and Tim Tebow. The Democrats will have to settle...BS44325 said:
In an election year where people want change from a "get out the vote" perspective that is a down right dangerous list of speakers.Cliffy6745 said:
For God's sake, can't you people ever concede anything?Post edited by what dreams on0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help