**** Elections thread *****

[oskar]

The Producers irl.

[oskar]

How Trump won over Cruz and Rubio is still completely incomprehensible to me.

[oskar]

[wufwugy]

Gotta put your werewolf hat on. The pollsters finding Trump near losing in his strongest states doesn't show Trump weak but shows the pollsters fucking up on the job. Let's go with the least ridiculous explanation.

[wufwugy]

Things like his top notch speech will only be given credit after 2038 or something.

[wufwugy]

Lots of virtue signalling. People aren't "allowed" to not bitch about Trump. But that goes away in the private voting booth. I suspect that more people will vote for him than otherwise because they're "not supposed to."

[wufwugy]

I'm predicting 20% probability of Trump winning close to 356 EVs. I say "close" because the exact number includes winning New Mexico, Maine, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, which are very aggressive predictions. Along with this is that he wins >20% of the black vote and >50% of the Hispanic vote -- and that men make up >50% of the electorate.

If you follow 538, you've seen the seldom occasion of Nate Copper and buddies stating that polling is in trouble yet defending why it's not in existential crisis. I think this election will unveil the existential crisis. Indeed, I think polling will appear to be far, far worse than it actually is, simply because I think the Trump phenomenon will yield the extreme end of bad polling results.

At the least, I have to believe this because I believe in humanity. Perhaps Hillary winning would be the best thing to happen to me because it would probably propel me to reject my automatic fantasy that humankind is something better than the rest.

[boost]

I'm starting to think your the expert troll, not spoon.

[wufwugy]

My prediction is conservative. Trump is gonna blow past 15% of the black vote. Accelerating.

[Deanglow]

yeah what have they got to lose

[wufwugy]

True. Since it is that the Democrats installed the urban plantations, what have urbans got to lose by not voting Democrat?

[wufwugy]

Calling it the urban plantation isn't fair. Slavery didn't kill the black family. The legacy of slavery didn't kill black culture. Democrats did, with propaganda. They turned a robust, thriving economy of black Americans from the post-war period into a gangland shoot-out that pauses only so it can burn down black-owned shops when a black cop kills a black criminal engaging in fatal violence into a race war that would make Lenin think he should have tried that tactic instead of class war. And what supposedly causes this? White racism. There's no other cause. Let's go vandalize a house with a Trump sign in the lawn just to prove how much all our problems are caused by white racism.

[wufwugy]

You wanna know why Trump will crush? I typed up a post on the lunacy and wrongness of the accusations of racism that our society has been putting up with for decades, yet I deleted it because I'm still too afraid of being accused of being racist. There are a huge number of people like me, and all of us are voting for Trump. We're tired of being sold a bill of goods that speaking sense makes us racist bigots, and we're tired of being told that black criminals engaging in fatal violence is legacy of slavery and that if we don't clasp our ankles we're a part of the problem. Black Lives Matter is sending Trump to a landslide victory. Feminism too, for that matter. Women are waking up and realizing that unlike the feminists tell them, they're not happy pretending to be men.

[Savy]

You wanna know why Trump will crush? I typed up a post on the lunacy and wrongness of the accusations of racism that our society has been putting up with for decades, yet I deleted it because I'm still too afraid of being accused of being racist. There are a huge number of people like me, and all of us are voting for Trump. We're tired of being sold a bill of goods that speaking sense makes us racist bigots, and we're tired of being told that black criminals engaging in fatal violence is legacy of slavery and that if we don't clasp our ankles we're a part of the problem. Black Lives Matter is sending Trump to a landslide victory. Feminism too, for that matter. Women are waking up and realizing that unlike the feminists tell them, they're not happy pretending to be men.

But you weren't voting for trump.

[wufwugy]

The guy I voted for in the primaries holds the same values on this. Trump was better at getting people galvanized on the issue and won in a large way because of it.

[wufwugy]

I love how this election has turned into the battle between the top talent of persuasion in academics (Robert Cialdini) vs the top talent of persuasion in practice (Trump). The practitioner is crushing, as should be expected.

[Savy]

What I like best about reading your posts about Trump is how you don't realise the vast amount of survivor bias in play.

[wufwugy]

What I like best about reading your posts about Trump is how you don't realise the vast amount of survivor bias in play.

Can you explain what you mean?

[Savy]

Can you explain what you mean?

Lots of the things you are accrediting to Trump like he's some sort of genius puppet master are complete rubbish. When you look at things that have a probability of working rather than are a certainty (almost everything) it's very easy to look at what works and then reverse engineer a reason as to why it worked as if it's a given when that's just not true.

If you asked people to choose 1 of 100 boxes of which 1 had a prize in and then looked at the groups of those who didn't get a prize and those who did and tried to find out what was different about the two groups I'm sure you could find tonnes of things but the reality is none of those things matter. If you get enough data we eventually find this but when applied to our scenarios we don't we get snapshots of time and try to give them meaning & ironically scenarios which are different and more rare are given the most meaning.

A good analogy is if you look at rich entrepreneurs they'll all go on about risk taking and how important it is & undoubtedly calculated risks are but almost none of these people understand risk on any real level. They just happen to be the tiny % that came good. Putting £100 on green when playing Roulette is a bad risk but I bet all those people who do and win don't think so.

Now political races and what not obviously have more to them than this and there are lots of things you can do to help your chances but the reality is Trump is doing so well because he just fits the bill of an "alternative" candidate in what is a wave of discontent within politics that seems to have developed in almost all western politics in the past couple of years.

[a500lbgorilla]

LOL@NPR trying to make this election a rebuke of the alt-right (aka 4chan). They had an interview with some internet psychologist who believed that if women had designed the internet, we wouldn't be having these problems because "women are naturally more protective" or some noise along those lines.

Now they're debating solutions for online harassment like the Leslie Jones nude leaks (whenever those happened) and they're suggesting registered life-long internet usernames.

This election is amazing.

[Savy]

A better more relevant analogy is the poker boom.

Look at people who lucked out and won big tournaments around the time poker exploded. Lots of those people weren't good at poker but that didn't stop them gaining huge success & money. Whereas there will be tonnes of very good poker players who have never had any big scores full of great advice that never get looked at because clearly the person with more success and fame is "better" than that other person.

I may be speaking out of turn here & correct me if so but who's giving better poker advice Renton or Chris Moneymaker? Who is the average person getting into poker listening to?

Same in gyms you're always going to listen to the "big" guys advice over someone who is smaller and may actually know what they're talking about.

edit - That got a bit off topic and isn't really relevant to the original point but meh whatever.

[wufwugy]

I don't disagree that I have confirmation bias. Everybody has it, and maybe it is partially mitigable at best.

However, to your specific points, my tune on Trump has changed dramatically since I began reading Scott Adams. Most of what I say about Trump's master persuasion skills I pull from Adams. For sure there is confirmation bias at every point in what I see, but there is also a great deal of evidence and reason to believe Trump is the Master Persuader, as Adams puts it.

Examples: the way he took down his opponents was different than I've seen in politics, and each example fits the bill of being visceral and confirming biases voters already felt about the candidates. He crushed Bush with one statement: low energy. The claim confirms our biases that Jeb really does seem like he could use more energy, and it took away one of his greatest strengths (policy seriousness) and put him in a fight for his life against the idea that he doesn't want to be there or can't handle it. "Lyin Ted" was another top quality linguistic kill shot. Ask anybody (even me, one of Ted's biggest supporters), and they'll say Cruz looks like a sleazy car salesman. How did Trump beat him? By playing to that bias in a simple way. I recall this was something JKDS pointed out at the time, how it was crazy how Trump turned the "TrusTed" theme on its back. At the time I thought that was not correct because I guess my bias was that voters are more logical than being easily persuaded word-thinkers. But JKDS was right. "Lyin' Ted" probably won the nomination fight for Trump.

There are too many examples of Trump's top level persuasion tactics to go into them all. I guess the one I'll end on that shows he thinks about this much more deeply than people give him credit for is that the position he is in now has been manufactured for a purpose. Multitudes of voters think he's a lunatic because that's what the media has said over and over. Yet at the first debate they're all gonna see a guy who doesn't fit the media's description. All Trump has to do to win the first debate hands down is perform mediocre. Perceptual contrast is one of the first elements of persuasion covered in Cialdini's Influence, and it seems pretty clear that this has been a goal of Trump. Since he has been branded so deeply as Literally Hitler, to win the election he just has to show people that he's not Literally Hitler. It's a great position to be in for effective persuasion.

[Savy]

I don't disagree that I have confirmation bias. Everybody has it, and maybe it is partially mitigable at best.

I'm not talking about confirmation bias.

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

[Keith]

so what happens if in the debates trump asks Billary if shes going to follow her husbands example of how to behave as a president and have sexual relations with a woman in the oval office?
does it back fire on trump , help trump by reminding the undecided that Bill had the monica affair , put Hillary off guard by making her deny she's a lesbian etc

[wufwugy]

so what happens if in the debates trump asks Billary if shes going to follow her husbands example of how to behave as a president and have sexual relations with a woman in the oval office?
does it back fire on trump , help trump by reminding the undecided that Bill had the monica affair , put Hillary off guard by making her deny she's a lesbian etc

I'm a novice of the psychology of persuasion at best, so I don't know. But if I'm guessing based on what I've learned, here it is:

Few undecided voters care about Clinton's sexual escapades, so there's little bias to confirm with them by hammering on those escapades. The tactic would probably be unpersuasive. It would also likely give Clinton ammo and make Trump look bad since the general bias is that Hillary was a victim of her husband's indiscretions. She and the media could, with great effect, paint Trump as a bully of women and victims.

[Savy]

so what happens if in the debates trump asks Billary if shes going to follow her husbands example of how to behave as a president and have sexual relations with a woman in the oval office?
does it back fire on trump , help trump by reminding the undecided that Bill had the monica affair , put Hillary off guard by making her deny she's a lesbian etc

Three options

1 - Doesn't happen - Masterful
2 - Does happen and goes well - Masterful
3 - Does happen and goes badly but we'll later say how it was the best action due to some given context - Masterful

[a500lbgorilla]

so what happens if in the debates trump asks Billary if shes going to follow her husbands example of how to behave as a president and have sexual relations with a woman in the oval office?
does it back fire on trump , help trump by reminding the undecided that Bill had the monica affair , put Hillary off guard by making her deny she's a lesbian etc

She'll too easily pivot to her bread and butter - properly stating what she will do in office.

If Trump could jostle her off her message so easily, it'd be really entertaining though.

[wufwugy]

I'm admitting to having confirmation bias. I'm not seeing the survivorship bias. That appears to be cognitive dissonance that ignores failures. I don't think I'm doing that. Granted I probably only post about his successes (a small fraction of them).

[BankItDrew]

wuf, you say trump will win in a landslide. how do you explain the current polls and gambling websites giving Hilary a 4:1 favorite?

[wufwugy]

wuf, you say trump will win in a landslide. how do you explain the current polls and gambling websites giving Hilary a 4:1 favorite?

Gambling sites: they've been wrong this whole cycle (at least on the GOP side). They also would have been wrong on the Dem side if the DNC hadn't literally cheated, but whatever. Also, AFAIK betting odds are set to generate action, to reflect how bettors want to act, not necessarily the *real* odds.

The polls: pollsters are engaging in some raunchy pro-Clinton tactics. For example, many of them are weighting for 2008 turnout. 2016 is not going to look like 2008. That doesn't mean that they should try to more accurately predict turnout, but it does show the polls have a consistent bias that is not likely to show up on election day. Most signs point towards the turnout being more GOP leaning than 2012 was, which suggests the race is very tight.

I think there will be a moderately significant Shy Trump effect. The Shy Tory effect has seemed to happen quite a bit in Britain. They say it happened with Brexit, where the polls had Remain winning yet it ended up getting soundly defeated.

The guys who ran the best poll in 2012 IMO are running this poll: http://cesrusc.org/election/

Nate Hydrogen hates it, but I think he's wrong. There is a great deal that can be garnered from this type of polling, and it was spot on in 2012. The link updates daily with new results. It's probably best used to view where the candidates are relative to each other and trends.

[wufwugy]

More or less, I don't think the polls will ever show a landslide coming. But I think on election day, the enthusiasm will be for Trump and not for Clinton. In addition to enthusiasm, I think the doubts people have about Clinton will be too high and that the doubts for Trump will have been mostly assuaged. Together this will mean millions of people making that marginal decision to show up for Trump and millions of people making that marginal decision to not show up for Clinton.

[a500lbgorilla]

More or less, I don't think the polls will ever show a landslide coming. But I think on election day, the enthusiasm will be for Trump and not for Clinton. In addition to enthusiasm, I think the doubts people have about Clinton will be too high and that the doubts for Trump will have been mostly assuaged. Together this will mean millions of people making that marginal decision to show up for Trump and millions of people making that marginal decision to not show up for Clinton.

I have zero enthusiasm for Clinton, but I'm still voting for her.

[wufwugy]

Without spending too much time on it, I'll point out one very compelling element within the polls. African American support is indicating a landslide for Trump even in polls that show Clinton with the lead. One of the latest polls has Clinton/Trump at 73%/14% of African Americans. 73% is disaster for Democrats. They would lose all sorts of blue states, like Pennsylvania and probably Michigan, with such low African American proportions.

The cross tabs are telling us the polls are not telling us the state of the race that well.

[BankItDrew]

Thanks for the response.

So bet the house on trump? It's paying 3.5:1

[a500lbgorilla]

Thanks for the response.

So bet the house on trump? It's paying 3.5:1

Do not do this.

[wufwugy]

Thanks for the response.

So bet the house on trump? It's paying 3.5:1

Do I think that's a steal? Yes. Do I recommend betting on it? No.

[BankItDrew]

As a Canadian, I've been following the race everyday since last June. I find it immensely more fascinating than our politics.

[Poopadoop]

What fascinates me about American politics is the fact that the public has such a broad view of what makes a candidate qualified for office. Reagan, Schwartzenegger, Ventura, and now Trump all come to mind as people who started their political careers by running for a significant office (governor or president) with little or no experience in politics/government at all. This does not happen in other English-speaking countries or the West in general afaik.

What I think this illustrates is that the US has mastered the art of marketing in elections. The amount of money spent on funding elections is astronomical compared to anywhere else. Discussions of policy are lacking or at most secondary to the real question of whose brand is a better seller. It may as well be an election pitting MacDonald's versus Coca-Cola.

[a500lbgorilla]

What fascinates me about American politics is the fact that the public has such a broad view of what makes a candidate qualified for office. Reagan, Schwartzenegger, Ventura, and now Trump all come to mind as people who started their political careers by running for a significant office (governor or president) with little or no experience in politics/government at all. This does not happen in other English-speaking countries or the West in general afaik.

What I think this illustrates is that the US has mastered the art of marketing in elections. The amount of money spent on funding elections is astronomical compared to anywhere else. Discussions of policy are lacking or at most secondary to the real question of whose brand is a better seller. It may as well be an election pitting MacDonald's versus Coca-Cola.

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

[Savy]

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office? I imagine a lot of countries also do, being seen as the smartest guy in the room isn't a positive trait for this.

[Poopadoop]

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office?

That's kind of what I was getting at, but even more, experience in office seems less relevant in the US than in other places.

[JKDS]

Doesn't America have a pretty strong history of anti-academia with regards to people in office? I imagine a lot of countries also do, being seen as the smartest guy in the room isn't a positive trait for this.

Maybe. 11 out of the last 13 presidents have had serious academic credentials. Like Yale, and Harvard Law.

Loads of people run as the "common man", but it's rarely true. There's nothing common about running for president or senate.

[Poopadoop]

I think it's more along the lines of thinking that the kind of common sense that can manage your work and family and community should scale up to the highest office.

It shouldn't take some great calculus to stand as the country's executive.

But it should take someone with some experience in office, no?

And what is it about any of these people that suggests they are good at managing all of their work, family and community? Trump's been married multiple times, for example, and has been described as the 'least charitable billionaire in the world' (suggesting he's less than keenly interested in the 'community'. Surely a highly educated, successful person with a stable marriage and some experience in government would make a better candidate than any of the ones i mentioned if that were the only criteria used to judge them.

[Poopadoop]

I can tell you this: If Rupert Murdoch (or whoever the UK equivalent of Trump is) should run for office he would not get a significant amount of support for the reasons I mentioned.

[a500lbgorilla]

But it should take someone with some experience in office, no?

And what is it about any of these people that suggests they are good at managing all of their work, family and community? Trump's been married multiple times, for example, and has been described as the 'least charitable billionaire in the world' (suggesting he's less than keenly interested in the 'community'. Surely a highly educated, successful person with a stable marriage and some experience in government would make a better candidate than any of the ones i mentioned if that were the only criteria used to judge them.

Obama didn't have much experience and I think he did well enough.

I'm very anti-Trump, so I can't really square up a defense for the man. I will, however, defend those that want to vote for him in earnest.

[a500lbgorilla]

Gotta show what I'll fall for.

He seems like a pretty competent sec of state, but I still voted against him for president. Probably woulda made a decent president too.

[Keith]

virtually all have resigned cos they realize that with corbyn in charge at the next election they will all be having to look for a proper job. This weeks train fiasco has helped weaken his position even further and casts a shadow over his integrity ,judgement and honesty . Not a great position if you want to be PM . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37173048

[wufwugy]

Hey Rilla what's up with Hillary?

[a500lbgorilla]

Hey Rilla what's up with Hillary?

Fucking nothing.

[wufwugy]

We gettin' close to muh ~356 electoral votes landslide prediction. Recent polls show Trump winning New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

[wufwugy]

If Trump got ~25% of the black vote, America's second-wave slavery would begin the fall to its final end.

[wufwugy]

I had you pegged as probably supporting Trump more than Clinton. So mark me surprised.

[a500lbgorilla]

I can't vote for Trump. He's not properly equipped for the job, in my estimation.

[wufwugy]

What is the estimation?

[a500lbgorilla]

What is the estimation?

Well, for one, when he speaks, he searches out feedback that supports him and ignores whatever slights him.

And when I say 'speaks', I mean 'tweets', which makes it that much worse.

[wufwugy]

Well, for one, when he speaks, he searches out feedback that supports him and ignores whatever slights him.

And when I say 'speaks', I mean 'tweets', which makes it that much worse.

It's a campaign.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's a campaign.

It's not. It's Trump.

[wufwugy]

It's not. It's Trump.

This aligns with his public persona, but when applied to his private life, makes no sense anymore.

[a500lbgorilla]

Remember, Romney was convinced he was going to win going into 2012, yet here we are.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...mbers_bad.html

[wufwugy]

Remember, Romney was convinced he was going to win going into 2012, yet here we are.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...mbers_bad.html

If we're using heuristics, I predicted 2012 better than Nate Hydrogen did.

[a500lbgorilla]

If we're using heuristics, I predicted 2012 better than Nate Hydrogen did.

Romney was surprised to lose that election, but he still lost it.

[wufwugy]

Romney was surprised to lose that election, but he still lost it.

I guess that's what happens when people believe things for the wrong reasons. The situation is hardly analogous.

[wufwugy]

Keep up on Scott Adams. You'd love his premise of irrationality.

[a500lbgorilla]

Keep up on Scott Adams. You'd love his premise of irrationality.

I haven't heard a peep out of him recently. He was calling the hail mary on Trump months ago, but he's been under the radar since trump has squared up with an actual political opponent of substance.

[wufwugy]

I haven't heard a peep out of him recently. He was calling the hail mary of Trump months ago, but he's been under the radar since trump as squared up with an actual political opponent of substance.

Read his blog.

BTW Trump no longer being the frontrunner doesn't coincide with being up against a "political opponent of substance." After Bernie dropped out, Clinton suddenly abandoned all substance and went full bore persuasion. I wish she stayed on substance, because she'd be losing by huge margins if she had. Instead, she's doing what Cialdini tells her, which is speak only in terms of Trump being scary.

[a500lbgorilla]

Read his blog.

BTW Trump no longer being the frontrunner doesn't coincide with being up against a "political opponent of substance." After Bernie dropped out, Clinton suddenly abandoned all substance and went full bore persuasion. I wish she stayed on substance, because she'd be losing by huge margins if she had. Instead, she's doing what Cialdini tells her, which is speak only in terms of Trump being scary.

Yeah, he has a solid blog post on for today.

I'm still voting Hillary.

I would literally vote for a warm pile of shit before Trump.

And wouldn't you know it, I can vote Hillary all the same.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, he has a solid blog post on for today.

You'd like him. He blogs mostly daily. He's the guy who first spotted that the author of your favorite book (Cialdini) began working for Clinton (which is when her persuasion game went from non-existent to "Trump will nuke your house"). His most foundational premise is that humans are always and incorrigibly irrational, and the best we can do is learn about it and get better at noticing it when it arises and taking a few steps to avoid some of the pitfalls.

If you don't like Trump, it's a great blog.

[OngBonga]

I would literally vote for a warm pile of shit before Trump.

Odds are that it'll be a cold pile of shit by the time election comes.

[JKDS]

Why would we want a doctor to be president? I guess if Healthcare was the top issue, but even then he'd be ill-equipped compared to a lawyer.

[Savy]

Dismissive a bit, but, you do need to campaign well to win an election. And education doesn't make a candidate, it's just a line on their resume.

Ye but I'd expect more overlap that's all. I struggle to see why the education part stops all the other attributes that matter.

Why would we want a doctor to be president? I guess if Healthcare was the top issue, but even then he'd be ill-equipped compared to a lawyer.

Can't remember if i said but I meant doctor in the academic sense rather than medical. For the record I think doctors tend to be pretty poor judges of healthcare as they are incredibly bias and have an incredibly narrow view of the process they're involved in.

[JKDS]

Also, trump will lose hard. He's got weird chances in states he shouldnt, but he's still gonna get crushed. Stopping "literally hitler" will get people voting, whether the comparison is fair or not.

[wufwugy]

Also, trump will lose hard. He's got weird chances in states he shouldnt, but he's still gonna get crushed. Stopping "literally hitler" will get people voting, whether the comparison is fair or not.

Only if the caricature holds up. Signs are pointing to it not holding up, but it certainly could.

[wufwugy]

How come?

So, I said that for mostly three reasons: to provide Rilla with something great, it's a partial copy of Adams (he ends all his blog posts with "if you such and such, or if you don't, you'll like my book"), and, most importantly, it was the blog that taught me to view Trump without my previous biases and blinders.

[JKDS]

The Spirit Holloween Store is selling Trump and Hillary costumes. I can get a "make America great again" hat as part of a costume prop.

[wufwugy]

combine the maga hat with american flag pants and this shirt.


i think i have my halloween cosutme. i'll call him perfect man.