Page 11 of 13

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:02 pm
by downeykp
Wet, I did notice the ass kicking comment. Polling could not know the effect on the election from Russian interference. I think that if the drip, drip, drip of negative news had a huge impact on polling and who pollsters were polling. When they find out that collusion really did happen the whole election would be a sham. Where we go from here would be Constitutionally unheard of.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:18 pm
by GRA
On the off chance that anyone's interested in what is and is not likely to occur, and what it will take to make major changes:
Trump's climate-change order: now what happens?
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... at-happens

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:42 pm
by abasile
downeykp wrote:Polling could not know the effect on the election from Russian interference. I think that if the drip, drip, drip of negative news had a huge impact on polling and who pollsters were polling. When they find out that collusion really did happen the whole election would be a sham. Where we go from here would be Constitutionally unheard of.
If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory! While it does appear that criminal collusion likely took place, I am reserving judgment, as I certainly hope for the sake of the Republic that this was not the case. Don't get me wrong, though, as I'd personally like to see Trump leave office sooner than later. Smart GOP politicians should be distancing themselves from Trump to the greatest extent possible.

On the positive side, I am gratified to see a growing trickle of Republican politicians coming to recognize that climate change needs to be addressed. This includes Rep. Darrell Issa (R), of Orange County, California, who recently joined the Climate Solutions Caucus. Republicans from climate-vulnerable areas such as South Florida seem to be more inclined to accept the scientific consensus.

Anyone who is represented by Republicans, as am I, should be calling their representatives, thanking them for their efforts to serve their constituents, and asking them to support climate-friendly policies that will help the US economy and local economies. Because continuing to tie our economy to fossil fuels is only going to make us less secure and less healthy.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:41 pm
by WetEV
golfcart wrote:
WetEV wrote:An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.
Moving the goalposts
Exactly how how is this "moving the goalposts?" Do explain.

golfcart wrote: and responding to your own questions rather than responding to my posts is not the sign of someone making a strong point.
You stated that this discussion was a waste of electrons. Perhaps you didn't mean that you were not going to answer, but that is the meaning I took. If you are not going to answer my question, I might as well answer it. So we can see that 0.03% margin of victory is an "ass kicking".

golfcart wrote:What use is the minimum X?
It is the number of people that could have changed the outcome of the election if they changed their vote.

golfcart wrote:The question to ask is what is the "X" in each state he won but she was favored between predicted and actual and what are the odds that every single X was biased in the same direction?
The states are not independent samples in the statistical sense. If Trump does 2% better than expected nationally, which he did, he is also likely to do better in most states. Unless, of course, it is some local issue or event pushing one state in a different direction. If 2% of voters both supported Trump, and were not past voters or likely voters, then the polls would miss them everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(statistics)

golfcart wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of a straw man, you have provided a nice example?
Your argument was the election was an "ask kicking". The fact that 0.03% of the voters was the margin of victory is a pretty accurate refutation of that.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:47 pm
by WetEV
abasile wrote:If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory!
I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic. Yes, this requires a large fraction of the Republicans to have a primary loyalty to the Republic, and not to their party.

What will happen, of course, isn't clear yet.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:21 pm
by abasile
WetEV wrote:
abasile wrote:If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory!
I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic.
This seems like a gray area because it's not simply a matter of possible Presidential wrongdoing; it's a matter of a potentially invalid election outcome. Given that, the Supreme Court could possibly rule that Hillary Clinton was the "true" winner. Recall, of course, that the Supreme Court had to step in and rule in favor of Bush for the election in 2000. My opinion remains that holding a new election would be the most fair way of rectifying a seriously flawed election, should that prove to have been the case. However, I admit that I'm not sure how this could work Constitutionally and I'd be concerned about the gap in continuity. Definitely not ideal.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:16 pm
by golfcart
WetEV wrote:
golfcart wrote:
WetEV wrote:An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.
Moving the goalposts
Exactly how how is this "moving the goalposts?" Do explain.
Context is your friend. I was, and have been the entire time, talking about how poorly the forecasts were compared to the outcome. I was at no point talking about him winning or losing and by how much, hence why showing the margin of victory is of no relevance to my argument and in my opinion "moving the goalposts".

I will give you credit, you are quite the nitpicker and that is an admirable trait, people (myself included) need to be specific when making a point... had I known you were hung up on the term "ass kicking" and not the meat of my actual argument we could have saved a lot of wasted time. The "ass kicking" comment was in the context of almost every major pollster putting Trump at about 216 and Clinton over 300. I guess I should have inserted " he didn't just manage to win the election, he kicked her ass (relative to what the pollsters forecasted)" to be more specific... I assumed it was understood given that I had been consistently talking about the systematic across the board failures of the "expert predictions". If it was not clear then my bad.

Just a reminder of the context of that statement.
golfcart wrote: This is not what happened, essentially every single state that they were wrong about went to Trump. I don't recall them projecting any states for Trump that went for Clinton. He didn't just win, he kicked her ass. What are the odds of that happening? Daily Kos had it 323 Clinton and 215 Trump. Every single forecast referenced on 270 to win had Trump at 216 or less.

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-f ... edictions/
WetEV wrote: The states are not independent samples in the statistical sense. If Trump does 2% better than expected nationally, which he did, he is also likely to do better in most states. Unless, of course, it is some local issue or event pushing one state in a different direction. If 2% of voters both supported Trump, and were not past voters or likely voters, then the polls would miss them everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(statistics)
Great!! So we agree, there was a bias which caused a systematic error! It is nice that 2 pages later we could get that settled and I'm glad you came around. It is highly unlikely that they were wrong so uniformly in one direction unless there was some sort of systematic failure in their method. I think the bias was that people lied because they don't trust the system and you think it might have been a multitude of other possibilities... that's fine. Either way, I think we agree that this election was different and the pollsters need to figure out why if they want to do better in the future with unconventional candidates.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:18 pm
by golfcart
WetEV wrote:
I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic. Yes, this requires a large fraction of the Republicans to have a primary loyalty to the Republic, and not to their party.

What will happen, of course, isn't clear yet.
Absolutely, If it is shown that he colluded with a foreign government to rig an election then impeach his ass and throw him in jail for treason and whatever other charge is relevant.

I feel like the odds of anything like that actually being traceable directly back to him are pretty small, but you never know he has shown himself to impulsively do dumb stuff before.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:32 pm
by LTLFTcomposite
And the evidence of any of this is???? You guys really need to stop listening to NBC News, it's turning your minds to mush.

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:40 pm
by downeykp
That is why they are investigating. Geez. Pull your head out of the sand much?