Trump Will Win Re-election for 2020 (Personal Prediction)

[woolfe9998]

That Trump has been making the case that the elections will be filled with fraud and it will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. He will get his SCOTUS.

I understand that concern. I don't think it automatically gives him the election, particularly if the vote isn't close. I suggest you not proselytize that sort of defeatism to others as it only encourages people not to bother voting.

 

[hal2kilo]

I understand that concern. I don't think it automatically gives him the election, particularly if the vote isn't close. I suggest you not proselytize that sort of defeatism to others as it only encourages people not to bother voting.

I'm still going to vote. But I'm getting a sense that people aren't realizing that Trump IS capable of doing anything to stay in office.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm still going to vote. But I'm getting a sense that people aren't realizing that Trump IS capable of doing anything to stay in office.

There is no doubt that Trump is unbounded by either legality or morality. He's going to rule as a dictator if he gets a second term. However, I have my doubts that he will be allowed to do so if he actually loses the election on the votes, particularly if it isn't by a razor thin margin.

 

[hal2kilo]

There is no doubt that Trump is unbounded by either legality or morality. He's going to rule as a dictator if he gets a second term. However, I have my doubts that he will be allowed to do so if he actually loses the election on the votes, particularly if it isn't by a razor thin margin.

And where is a close election decision going to be made?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, I think the election matters. Not sure what you're arguing here.

I agree. The 2000 Florida recount fiasco will not be repeated. Dem turnout will be huge. Given a big shift in public sentiment, Trump might even lose Texas.

 

[woolfe9998]

And where is a close election decision going to be made?

You're basing your argument on the assumption that a conservative majority will hand Trump the election automatically on partisan grounds no matter the margin of votes. The 2000 Bush v. Gore outcome was obviously influenced by partisan preference but came down to one state with a razor thin margin of a few hundred votes. I don't agree with your assumption.

 

[hal2kilo]

I agree. The 2000 Florida recount fiasco will not be repeated. Dem turnout will be huge. Given a big shift in public sentiment, Trump might even lose Texas.

I want you to be right, and I think this is where this will go, but I really never thought that our grip on democracy was so tenuous. Never in my lifetime, would I have thought I would see this.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree. The 2000 Florida recount fiasco will not be repeated. Dem turnout will be huge. Given a big shift in public sentiment, Trump might even lose Texas.

I always appreciate your optimism about the election as it makes me feel better. However, I'll wait and see what the actual outcome is. High dem turnout is a strong possibility in this election year given what is at stake but it isn't guaranteed and Trump has an EC advantage plus the willingness to exceed all bounds of morality to win this election. We'll see how it turns out.

I am in the middle between your unbridled optimism and Hal's unbridled pessimism here.

 

[ivwshane]

I have read that when it comes to language Trump can only speak at a very basic level. He does not have the capacity to speak at an elevated formal level. A possibility here is that for people who are just like him he makes perfect sense but lacking the capacity for formal speech themselves when hearing Biden they hear gibberish because he speaks way over their heads.

Clearly, when it comes to the liberal conservative divide, there is a remarkable difference in critical thinking skills, skills that only a liberal education can train.

Hence the decades of attacking our school system, to save us from a liberal education. They have been very effective at dumbing down the populace and attacking various “liberal institutions”.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hence the decades of attacking our school system, to save us from a liberal education. They have been very effective at dumbing down the populace and attaching various “liberal institutions”.

Citizens United money and the like. Billionaires decide things for us or get us to believe in things that make them wealthier.

 

[interchange]

Sure, if your contention is that you believe that despite no evidence for it that’s fine. I do think it’s important to note the difference between something for which there is no evidence available as compared to something for which evidence IS available and does not indicate as such though, which is the case here.

I don't agree with that statement. There is no evidence available with capacity to test the hypothesis of a shy Trump voter effect. Or at least none has been presented here. Evidence presented here neither supports nor refutes the hypothesis.

Related to that yes, I am making a statement that the shy Trump voter most likely does not exist to any extent greater than that of any other candidate.

Are you stating that is your belief, or that you can demonstrate it?

It is of course not possible to prove a negative but the idea that something does not exist should be the default assumption.

It is definitely possible to prove that a hypothesis is false. Of course, what constitutes scientific "proof" requires further discussion.

I don't agree that the "default assumption" should be that something unproven does not exist. It is often very prudent to consider that something bad is real if there is a reasonable way to respond.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't agree with that statement. There is no evidence available with capacity to test the hypothesis of a shy Trump voter effect. Or at least none has been presented here. Evidence presented here neither supports nor refutes the hypothesis.

I strongly disagree! A shy Trump voter should represent itself as results consistently outside the margin of error in favor of Trump that cannot be explained by other forms of polling error. Since that does not exist, the evidence does not support the hypothesis.

Are you stating that is your belief, or that you can demonstrate it?

See above.

It is definitely possible to prove that a hypothesis is false. Of course, what constitutes scientific "proof" requires further discussion.

It really isn’t.

I don't agree that the "default assumption" should be that something unproven does not exist. It is often very prudent to consider that something bad is real if there is a reasonable way to respond.

We will have to agree to disagree here then as that is the basis for all statistical analysis and it seems foolish to go against that, especially here.

Is there a magic teapot orbiting Mars? My default assumption is no.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'm still going to vote. But I'm getting a sense that people aren't realizing that Trump IS capable of doing anything to stay in office.

Once again, is he an evil genius that can control puppets behind the scene....


or is he a bumbling buffoon that is dumb as shit that makes REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT speeches ALL THE TIME?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Citizens United money and the like. Billionaires decide things for us or get us to believe in things that make them wealthier.

Except.... you know.... the candidates who got the most lobby money is the one that lost last year.

The one with the most money this year is Biden.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He won the election, but lost the money race. Trump raised half the money that Clinton raised throughout the cycle. Here’s how it was spent in the last days.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[mect]

Once again, is he an evil genius that can control puppets behind the scene....


or is he a bumbling buffoon that is dumb as shit that makes REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT speeches ALL THE TIME?

He is a bumbling buffoon with no morals who is willing to sell out our democracy to the highest bidder.

 

[interchange]

I strongly disagree! A shy Trump voter should represent itself as results consistently outside the margin of error in favor of Trump that cannot be explained by other forms of polling error. Since that does not exist, the evidence does not support the hypothesis.

That's false. A shy Trump voter effect of 2% would be very significant in terms of outcome, yet that 2% is well within the margin of error of most polls.

The results of the election will determine discordance between the results of polls, but it says nothing about why that discordance exists.

It really isn’t.

We will have to agree to disagree here then as that is the basis for all statistical analysis and it seems foolish to go against that, especially here.

The basis of statistical analysis is disproving hypothesis. Disproving hypotheses is actually the thing that you can do. So a proper scientific analysis doesn't actually prove a hypothesis true, it proves the null hypothesis untrue.

*requires a further discussion of what constitutes "proof" of something

Something like a horoscope is not subject to scientific inquiry because it is impossible to come up with a hypothesis that you can disprove in order to support it. That is the kind of thing you are referencing here.

The hypothesis that there is no "shy Trump voter" effect is falsifiable. You could do so by having access to an individual's responses to a poll right before the enter the voting booth and the vote that they actually entered. It is something that could be done, but hasn't and won't.

You are right that failure to reject the null hypothesis here would not prove that there is no "shy Trump voter" effect. The converse hypothesis may not be falsifiable (like the horoscope).

But the main problem here is that we actually have no data which directly tests the hypothesis in the first place. We can still examine it and provide evidence to whether the hypothesis is more likely to be true or not, but it is inaccurate from the start to think that it could ever raise to the level of scientific proof.

Is there a magic teapot orbiting Mars? My default assumption is no.

I didn't get into a car accident this morning, but I did put my seat belt on.

 

[interchange]

Once again, is he an evil genius that can control puppets behind the scene....


or is he a bumbling buffoon that is dumb as shit that makes REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT speeches ALL THE TIME?

Genius isn't requisite for Trump to succeed in evil acts.

Who says Trump's speeches are "REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT" "ALL THE TIME"?

 

[HomerJS]

I've held off on this prediction for a while now - because originally I was under the impression that Joe Biden was the best bet to win against him. Now I'm pretty certain - Trump will win for 2020.


Countless reasons - but main ones that stick out to me. Inevitably, the people of low intelligence here will do something moronic like "WHAT ABOUT TRUMP WHEN HE DID <x>?!". I'll ignore them out of pure stupidity of not understanding the basics of arguments - but also because I have zero positive support for Trump so it's a moronic point to bring up i nthe first place.

• Joe Biden Gaffs - Regardless of your comparisons to current POTUS, it is an entirely different kind, and it is much more often. To the Point where everyone can clearly notice they are limiting his screen time because it doesn't help him.

• Joe Biden chooses a middle of the road crappy VP - that was clearly despised and ignored during the primary clown car. They could have gone progressive to bridge their gaps, but opted to be morons instead. Folks here will try to correct me into saying Kamala is some magical progressive unicorn. No one with half a brain would believe something so stupid - coming from an AG that locked up countless minorities and helped cops cover up evidence against them.

• Democrats/Progressives actively endorsing "Defund the Police" narrative - Do you know who doesn't want to defund the police? African Americans.

Rick Wilson was spot the fuck on here in this Bill Maher interview.

WATCH: Bill Maher and Rick Wilson Slam Democrats for Not Jumping All Over Looting, Rioting

The Real Time panel says that Democrats are not handling the issue of riots or looting well, from an election perspective.

www.mediaite.com

• Protests continue to destroy property and businesses of minorities. No one cares. No one blinks an eye because it's a business, they must be rich and they must be loaded with tons of money. Reality proves otherwise, but most people are simply morons that live in their gated suburb community..... In support of the protests/riots... until it comes to their doorstep.

View attachment 29347

• Our media still continues to cover things up - not address them - and write continuously about how "property doesn't matter" and "the insurance company will take care of it". All of these are things that can only come from the brain of an inept individual with no real understanding of economics, insurance, or how business works. Apparently these morons haven't heard about insurance rate hikes, deductibles, and coverage limits. Of course, once again - the defense of these sort of things are from the types of people that haven't had to put in an insurance claim and be denied or only be given a maximum amount.

In Defense of Destroying Property

We cannot conflate the destruction of plateglass with the violence that is being protested.

www.thenation.com

Minneapolis & Saint Paul Ain’t Coming Back | The ‘Insurance’ Argument Won’t Save the Twin Cities

Support my channel: On my website: http://www.mattchristiansenmedia.com/supportOr SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/matt-christiansenDeals on cool...

www.youtube.com

• BLM, rioters, etc... continue to convert more people to vote for Trump as they continue to do moronic shit like block freeways, block traffic, destroy homes, destroy businesses, destroy jobs, light shit on fire, and oppose policing their vandalism. Everytime this happens in cities, I GUARANTEE you the majority will be voting Trump because one party is acknowledging a problem, and the other is blanketly ignoring it.

Take it from an actual black man instead of ignorantly declaring your thoughts on something that has nothing to do with you:

America's division isn't racial. It is class - And until you recognize this, you will continue to fail over and over and over again.

Racism is what the class elites want you to continue to believe is happening. It continues to sew division and continues to keep the bottom fighting with the bottom, instead of the bottom fighting with the top.

Wynton Marsalis: The Ever Fonky Lowdown | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

Subscribe to the Real Time YouTube: http://itsh.bo/10r5A1B Legendary jazz musician Wynton Marsalis joins Bill to discuss how his latest album, "The Ever Fonk...

www.youtube.com

So with all that said - Trump will win re-election. It's pretty much a guarantee at this point. Enjoy your treat, courtesy of your own party self-ignorance. Continue to shit on the middle-class, only defend the elites, ignore fly-over states, and you will get what you righteously deserve.

Take it from Michael Moore - the same hard-leftie that called it last time.

Krystal and Saagar: Heads EXPLODE as Michael Moore Predicts Another Trump Re-Elect

Krystal and Saagar discuss Michael Moore's warning to Democrats, as Trump upticks in multiple polls following the Republican National Convention. About Risin...

www.youtube.com

View attachment 29349

Since you are so super duper confident care to put your money where your mouth is?

You are quick to challenge others...

Trump...Tax Fraud? Say it ain't so!

I realize this will be drawn out until WAAAAAAY after the election...so it won't impact his chances in any way... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-vance/trump-could-face-tax-fraud-probe-manhattan-prosecutor-says-idUSKCN26C2W9 Trump could face tax fraud probe, Manhattan prosecutor...

forums.anandtech.com

$50 says you are wrong. Vote decided at the polls. If SCOTUS decides then it's a push

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Genius isn't requisite for Trump to succeed in evil acts.

Who says Trump's speeches are "REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT" "ALL THE TIME"?

There was a hint of sarcasm there to direct imitate how stupid he is during his speeches.

 

[cytg111]

Once again, is he an evil genius that can control puppets behind the scene....


or is he a bumbling buffoon that is dumb as shit that makes REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT speeches ALL THE TIME?

He is stupid Capone with Putin's fist up his ass.
That is what you are witnessing.
Laugh it off all you want.
Tell me, how well will you fare in a mafia state? Got the stones for that?

 

[fskimospy]

That's false. A shy Trump voter effect of 2% would be very significant in terms of outcome, yet that 2% is well within the margin of error of most polls.

The results of the election will determine discordance between the results of polls, but it says nothing about why that discordance exists.

Sorry, that’s wrong. It would be within the margin of error for any one particular poll but over the span of many hundreds of polls a shy Trump effect would manifest as the other variables encompassed in the error term varied while the shy Trump effect did not. This is precisely why regression analysis exists, to detect things of this sort.

The basis of statistical analysis is disproving hypothesis. Disproving hypotheses is actually the thing that you can do. So a proper scientific analysis doesn't actually prove a hypothesis true, it proves the null hypothesis untrue.

Not really - you reject the null hypothesis to a certain confidence level, you never prove anything true or untrue.

*requires a further discussion of what constitutes "proof" of something

Something like a horoscope is not subject to scientific inquiry because it is impossible to come up with a hypothesis that you can disprove in order to support it. That is the kind of thing you are referencing here.

Feel free to substitute it with any number of things that are. The point is once you no longer require evidence to think something, you can basically invent any excuse you want for why things are.

The hypothesis that there is no "shy Trump voter" effect is falsifiable. You could do so by having access to an individual's responses to a poll right before the enter the voting booth and the vote that they actually entered. It is something that could be done, but hasn't and won't.

You are right that failure to reject the null hypothesis here would not prove that there is no "shy Trump voter" effect. The converse hypothesis may not be falsifiable (like the horoscope).

But the main problem here is that we actually have no data which directly tests the hypothesis in the first place. We can still examine it and provide evidence to whether the hypothesis is more likely to be true or not, but it is inaccurate from the start to think that it could ever raise to the level of scientific proof.

I didn't get into a car accident this morning, but I did put my seat belt on.

Again, this is simply incorrect. The only way to falsify it is to contact and test literally every person who voted for Trump, and that’s facially ridiculous. It is not falsifiable in any rational way.

So again, a regression analysis of polls should show a consistent error term unexplained by sample bias, incorrect weighting, etc. That is exactly the evidence anyone could supply if the effect is real.

I’ve given you a roadmap for proving your point. You will not be able to do so though, because the effect most likely does not exist.

 

[interchange]

Sorry, that’s wrong. It would be within the margin of error for any one particular poll but over the span of many hundreds of polls a shy Trump effect would manifest as the other variables encompassed in the error term varied while the shy Trump effect did not. This is precisely why regression analysis exists, to detect things of this sort.

This isn't repeated tests of the same experimental conditions. These are separate polls with varying methods at different points of time in different locations, etc. Such a regression analysis would not be appropriate. And even if I were to say that it would be appropriate, we'd have to first establish an understanding of how much of a "shy Trump voter" effect would we consider meaningful. And use that to do a power analysis to see if our regression was adequately powered to reject the null hypothesis that a "shy Trump voter effect" doesn't exist.

Not really - you reject the null hypothesis to a certain confidence level, you never prove anything true or untrue.

Hence my asterisk about what constitutes "proof".

Feel free to substitute it with any number of things that are. The point is once you no longer require evidence to think something, you can basically invent any excuse you want for why things are.

The absence of evidence sufficient to establish something to be true in experimental conditions does not mean absence of evidence in absolute.

Again, this is simply incorrect. The only way to falsify it is to contact and test literally every person who voted for Trump, and that’s facially ridiculous. It is not falsifiable in any rational way.

Don't be ridiculous. You wouldn't have to contact and test every person who voted for Trump. You'd just have to contact enough. But having access to who a person voted for period is facially ridiculous. That was my point.

So again, a regression analysis of polls should show a consistent error term unexplained by sample bias, incorrect weighting, etc. That is exactly the evidence anyone could supply if the effect is real.

No. That would not be an appropriate analysis. And if it were, we'd have to ensure it was adequately powered to detect an error at whatever magnitude we might consider significant.

I’ve given you a roadmap for proving your point. You will not be able to do so though, because the effect most likely does not exist.

Why do you keep missing that I have said I cannot prove it exists over and over again?

because the effect most likely does not exist.

Is that your personal opinion, or do you think that is what the evidence suggests?

If the latter, would you like to actually provide evidence of the sort beyond my ability to do the impossible?

 

[Moonbeam]

Hence the decades of attacking our school system, to save us from a liberal education. They have been very effective at dumbing down the populace and attaching various “liberal institutions”.

I believe it is a product, in no small part, to being conditioned from childhood by advertisement to equate the inevitable feelings of inadequacy we acquire from being put down to how great we will feel if we can own this or that product advertisers are the first to tell us we actually deserve to have. Pride in brand, pride in ownership, having the most toys, etc., imagine the disruption to the market if people could think.

 

[hal2kilo]

Once again, is he an evil genius that can control puppets behind the scene....


or is he a bumbling buffoon that is dumb as shit that makes REALLY GOOD REALLY GREAT speeches ALL THE TIME?

I believe it is a product, in no small part, to being conditioned from childhood by advertisement to equate the inevitable feelings of inadequacy we acquire from being put down to how great we will feel if we can own this or that product advertisers are the first to tell us we actually deserve to have. Pride in brand, pride in ownership, having the most toys, etc., imagine the disruption to the market if people could think.

Yea, imagine.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yea, imagine.

Imagine theres no country.... it's easy if you try....