The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reagan is no where near the 3rd best president of all time

Trump will be awful


And many others would say he's one of the best. Just depends on your political spectrum. No matter who won last night, I'm glad it's over, and willing to give the winner the benefit of the doubt. You have no idea how well he'll govern, nor do I.
 
Obama's legacy - the destruction of the Democratic Party - Party in complete disarray :lol:

Not just the democrats, but it will be interesting to see where the GOP goes from here. This is no longer Ryan's party or the party of establishment figures like Romney, Bush and McCain.

It's the party of Trump. He won despite the best efforts of the establishment to undermine him and he brought them majorities in both houses. Ryan didn't even endorse him until he made big song and dance about it.

I reckon we will see the realigning of not just 1 but 2 major political parties.
 
It should never be used as a stick to beat her with.

I disagree. The lesson of the Trump campaign has to be that that stick should have been swung harder and with a higher frequency.
 
If she were a guy, with all her baggage, I doubt she would've been the chosen one of the Party either. So it goes both ways.

Not so sure about that, Trump has a lot of baggage. It may not be political baggage sure, but that's only because he's not a politician and Clinton is. (was)

But two wrongs dont make a right.

It should never be used as a stick to beat her with. Yet it was during this campaign trail.

If anything it was used to highlight the disparities in treatment between Trump and Hillary.

I didn't beat her with it. It was always going to come up, Obama had to convince people for years that he wasn't born in Kenya, and even with evidence some still don't believe him.
 
And many others would say he's one of the best. Just depends on your political spectrum. No matter who won last night, I'm glad it's over, and willing to give the winner the benefit of the doubt. You have no idea how well he'll govern, nor do I.

There have been better Republican presidents than Reagan. He's not ranked third by anyone with a solid understanding of the political history of the US.
 
Not so sure about that, Trump has a lot of baggage. It may not be political baggage sure, but that's only because he's not a politician and Clinton is. (was)



If anything it was used to highlight the disparities in treatment between Trump and Hillary.

I didn't beat her with it. It was always going to come up, Obama had to convince people for years that he wasn't born in Kenya, and even with evidence some still don't believe him.
That's because he's African American and Hillary is a woman. If they were both white males it would have been easier to convince the majority.
 
Stochastic models are prone to misspecification as well as bad observations. We often put a blind trust in frameworks that are inherently probabilistic. As long as we don't have a better way of predicting the future, and maintain an extreme desire to do so, it will continue to happen. In fact, the probability of a complete mishap like this to happen again is 1 almost surely. It is in principle the same issue many had with the economic models in the wake of the financial crises we had 6-8 years ago, and the reason some doubt the precision of the models of climate change. Finally, even a correctly specified model might have given a large probability for a Clinton win. You might have a correct estimate saying Trump loses with 99% probability, yet he wins. That is how probability works


Most economic models that predict stuff are horribly by design. That has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of probability, but with simplistic models that try to predict complicated things. The people who run these models don’t understand math. These are the kind of models that create high sigma events on a regular basis and nobody seems to notice that. When a physicist would see these results, he’d know instantly that many of these models are garbage, while social scientists think that they found the holy grail.

I never really looked into models, that try to predict elections, but I’d bet they are equally flawed.
I said it early, 538 were the only ones who admitted that there is huge uncertainty. They deserve some credit for their predictions. The rest of these idiots designed models that suit their political agenda.
 
My hypothesis was predicated on delays in capital spend projects, as well as consumer spend. He's such an unorthodox candidate that there must be a wait-and-see period, unless there's more assertive statements on the several economic issues, and a credible name indicated as SecTres. Otherwise as a management team of a large consumer-facing company, why would you initiate any spend initiatives here in 4Q?

Maybe there's a delay but we get clarity by mid-end of 1Q17 or 2Q17. But you know how this works... by then you already have a slowdown in wages, in spending, and it starts to feed forward. But, like your answer to someone on modelling, this is just a scenario with its associated probability.


I wouldn’t be surprised if he negotiates a tax holiday for all the corporate money that is sitting in corporate accounts abroad. That could give the economy a short-term boost. We have to see if he embraces the GOP agenda (Paul Ryan/reduce government spending) or if he carries on with his crazy spending promises.
 
As a Bernie supporter, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have predicted the results of last night over a year ago.

My reward for raising the alarm? Smeared as a sexist, called a 'Bernie Bro', and told I was living in a fantasy....
 
Most economic models that predict stuff are horribly by design. That has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of probability, but with simplistic models that try to predict complicated things. The people who run these models don’t understand math. These are the kind of models that create high sigma events on a regular basis and nobody seems to notice that. When a physicist would see these results, he’d know instantly that many of these models are garbage, while social scientists think that they found the holy grail.

I never really looked into models, that try to predict elections, but I’d bet they are equally flawed.
I said it early, 538 were the only ones who admitted that there is huge uncertainty. They deserve some credit for their predictions. The rest of these idiots designed models that suit their political agenda.

Maybe he's not the only one that made the point, but he hammered it home enough that I was aware during the night, that polling error is often correlated state-by-state. So as she was struggling in FL and NC, and then you started to get more PA and MI and it was tough there too, I realized he was right on that. I think NYT model also had that assumption, as it swung pretty quickly and was soon gone at 90%+ Trump probability.
 
Bernie would have been eaten up and shit out by Trump with consummate ease.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if he negotiates a tax holiday for all the corporate money that is sitting in corporate accounts abroad. That could give the economy a short-term boost. We have to see if he embraces the GOP agenda (Paul Ryan/reduce government spending) or if he carries on with his crazy spending promises.

Its all possible, I just think he should spit it out within the next 6 weeks or so.
 
Kellyanne on CNN now

Someday she is going to make a lot of money selling books on this campaign
 
As a Bernie supporter, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have predicted the results of last night over a year ago.

My reward for raising the alarm? Smeared as a sexist, called a 'Bernie Bro', and told I was living in a fantasy....
you can understand how Trump fans feel, so
 
Not just the democrats, but it will be interesting to see where the GOP goes from here. This is no longer Ryan's party or the party of establishment figures like Romney, Bush and McCain.

It's the party of Trump. He won despite the best efforts of the establishment to undermine him and he brought them majorities in both houses. Ryan didn't even endorse him until he made big song and dance about it.

I reckon we will see the realigning of not just 1 but 2 major political parties.
Nah think the win allows the GOP to stay as it is. Trump truly is an exception. The perfect combination of time...angst...personality. Once in a lifetime sort of thing.

Van Jones was over the top with his white-lash thing. Because, without a significant portion of the white population, Obama is not a 2 time President! But, it is true - this was the 'last stand' of old america - people who felt things were changing (good/bad depending on your views) and they didn't have enough of a say.

This was them having a say.
 
I'll put my hand up and say that I took a truckload of egg.

I had a bad opinion of both candidates but thought that Clinton would win because of Trump's absurd promises and his personality. I don't understand how a country like the USA can end up with these two options, it is full of extremely intelligent and reasonable people but it seems that they are not interested in Politic.
 
Does anyone know when Hillary will be speaking?

I hate this outcome just as much as the next guy, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to seeing her smug, patronising demeanor wiped from her face.
 
Not so sure about that, Trump has a lot of baggage. It may not be political baggage sure, but that's only because he's not a politician and Clinton is. (was)

Oh I don't disagree. He certainly wasn't my first choice. But he wasn't on Government tit for 30+ years either collecting that baggage. The 'Outsider' angle was large here.
 
clinton campaign fecked up massively. the hubris, elitism, the "if you don't agree with me you're racist/sexist/homophobe/islamophobe/whatever-phobe" attitude from the left has, again, proved to be their undoing.
 
But can ppl see the difference? Romney got 60.9mil and got his butt kicked, while Trump has 58.9mil and has won in an electoral landslide basically.

Democrats stayed home - Hillary not only didn't raise her game, she didn't even match what Obama got. People spoke about an enthusiasm gap,or not all Bernie Bros coming across and that's precisely what's happened. I know people will speak of tremendous support for Trump, but it really wasn't that...there simply wasn't support for Hillary. Her campaign and the media refused to acknowledge this.

Overall voting numbers will be down - yet, Trump and Hillary were meant to bring in new voters, previously disenfranchised voters. Nope, they turned voters off - Luckily for Trump, more people found Hillary to be 'deplorable'.

'Latino Surge'...ahem
.

Agreed. Dems needed a candidate to unite the status quo and progressive fractions.
 
the hubris, elitism, the "if you don't agree with me you're racist/sexist/homophobe/islamophobe/whatever-phobe" attitude from the left has, again, proved to be their undoing.

It's less "you don't agree with me" when the candidate himself is an actual racist who's admitted to groping women though, isn't it?

I don't even necessarily disagree with the assessment that the left can whip themselves into hysteria at times and that they often focus on unimportant, trivial issues and can't hand opposing opinions, but the idea that they're telling you you're sexist or racist for disagreeing with them kind of goes out the window if you vote for a candidate who is, err...a sexist and racist.
 
Does anyone know when Hillary will be speaking?

I hate this outcome just as much as the next guy, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to seeing her smug, patronising demeanor wiped from her face.

Yes, the only consolation in all this :drool:
 
I had a bad opinion of both candidates but thought that Clinton would win because of Trump's absurd promises and his personality. I don't understand how a country like the USA can end up with these two options, it is full of extremely intelligent and reasonable people but it seems that they are not interested in Politic.

When you have enough financial backing behind you it is easier to put yourself forward as a candidate.
There are plenty of intelligent people in politics, but who is the money behind? Clinton has a lot of finance behind her and has for years, Trump obviously has money too.
Running a political campaign in America is always about how much money is behind you
 
After winning this campaign, she’ll get offers from everyone to help out….Additionally, I find her weirdly attractive for a women of her age.

She is a great campaign manager to have and I say that not because of the result. Even when Trump's campaign was at its lowest ebb, she fought as well as she could for him on hostile media platforms.
 
Agreed. Dems needed a candidate to unite the status quo and progressive fractions.

I don't know what was the crux of their campaign, I followed it from afar and still received everything that Trump wanted to expose. But I know nothing about Clinton's campaign.
 
When you have enough financial backing behind you it is easier to put yourself forward as a candidate.
There are plenty of intelligent people in politics, but who is the money behind? Clinton has a lot of finance behind her and has for years, Trump obviously has money too.
Running a political campaign in America is always about how much money is behind you
This was not the case here. Clinton's campaign had much larger financial backing and better organization. Trump's support was largely organic, and even surpassed their own predictions.
 
Most economic models that predict stuff are horribly by design. That has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of probability, but with simplistic models that try to predict complicated things. The people who run these models don’t understand math. These are the kind of models that create high sigma events on a regular basis and nobody seems to notice that. When a physicist would see these results, he’d know instantly that many of these models are garbage, while social scientists think that they found the holy grail.

I never really looked into models, that try to predict elections, but I’d bet they are equally flawed.
I said it early, 538 were the only ones who admitted that there is huge uncertainty. They deserve some credit for their predictions. The rest of these idiots designed models that suit their political agenda.

Ironically, one thing few models take into account is the natural struggle to develop an intuition for probability - which exists according to several behavioural psychologists like Daniel Kahneman.
 
This was not the case here. Clinton's campaign had much larger financial backing and better organization. Trump's support was largely organic, and even surpassed their own predictions.

I was talking about Clinton becoming the DNC candidate. The OP was talking about isn't there smarter people in politics, yes but the money is always behind the established set. Clinton for the DNC and Romney etc for the republicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.