according to the la times poll, the only demo that moved decidedly in trump's direction post-lewd remarks was women (!), yet mainstream outlets have reported the opposite. it's as if no one bothers to check the best metric we have of actual changes in voter intention.
given that panel polls are much better at measuring changes in voter intention -- see gelman's paper -- there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the traditional polls that have come out in the last two weeks. either the la times was very poorly constructed or there is systemic and extreme clinton bias or both. i can't wait to see what happens!
The Rainbow coalition is a joke. In Cali., politics has degenerated into racial bloc voting among non-whites. Outside of Cali., we see that Hispanics are more amenable to voting GOP. The Dems being the party of layabout thug blacks probably alienates a decent amount of Mestizos. The ones who make an honest living, are here legally (perhaps for several generations at this point), and don't buy into cultural Marxism like blacks (nobody equals or bests blacks in that department) would rather have policies that encourage virtue and sovereignty. Not Dem. policies intended to re-make America into a ragged patchwork of clashing ethnicities and liberal excuse making/enabling towards various unsavory parties (junkies, homeless, criminals, fags, blacks, etc.)
Also, some Hispanics aren't that dumb. They see that the Dems are pushing for the garbage that will 3rd worldize the US. You don't settle in a 1st world country to see your "new" country be swamped by endless streams of strivers and criminals. As we see by how blacks have totally bought into bloc voting, all blacks care about is having a party that will make excuses for them and keep their urban machines humming. They don't buy into the founding father's vision of America as the ultimate Western country, and they never will. Not when white liberal commies have been poisoning their gullible minds with rage towards whites for the last 70 years.
Have you seen the video of blacks destroying a Trump car parked in an apartment parking lot? Perhaps young Mestizos or doofus white teens would've done the same at night and after pot and booze, and they would've done the vandalism as a goof. But with blacks, they're a sullen swarming pack who pull this crap in broad daylight with co-ethnics (some of whom are probably middle-aged) cheering them on.
"Question. Is it odd if I'm a bit intidimated by how clairvoyant you and Scott Adams have been on the election?
I can't come up with an example of you or Adams missing something. Both of you noted how how little impact the Kahns made, for example."
Curious why you lumped Agnostic together with Scott Adams (not that I think there's a problem with it). Has Agnostic ever discussed him? I don't believe he has. Scott Adams is famous... I just find this statement so curious.
Tonight is the final debate. I have seen a lot of tweets from prominent leftists wondering out loud if Hillary should even attend tonight's debate. It's happened with enough frequency to where I'm wondering now if it isn't A/B testing to see if Hillary can risk a last minute cancellation for the third debate. Her supporters know that she will take a hit in the poll but they buy the rigged polling. So they say, "She might take a small hit but she's ahead by nine points so it doesn't matter!" not knowing the truth. I'm 99.9% certain she will show up tonight but at this point, nothing would surprise me anymore. With the various "scandals" gone or neutralized at this point, they have to be wondering what they can do for these final three weeks.
Both people who predicted in some form or fashion Trump winning the GOP nomination and/or election from the beginning. It's a short list - Ann Coulter, Heartiste, and Mike Cernovich are the only others who immediately spring to mind (and myself but I'm not a public figure even by the lowly standards of writing a blog).
But both have made wrong predictions as well. Agnostic predicted Jeff Sessions as the VP nominee up until the week of. And I think Adams has predicted Trump winning in a landslide at certain points, which doesn't look likely (I think he still has a good chance but would be very surprised at a landslide), not to mention saying it was all over the week the fainting Hillary footage came out.
I've enjoyed reading Adams' comments on the election but I don't think his "Master Persuader" model is very accurate at describing what is actually going on at the most fundamental level.
"Both people who predicted in some form or fashion Trump winning the GOP nomination and/or election from the beginning. It's a short list - Ann Coulter, Heartiste, and Mike Cernovich are the only others who immediately spring to mind (and myself but I'm not a public figure even by the lowly standards of writing a blog)."
One's list of who predicted a Trump win from the beginning depends on the circles one moves in and I doubt Anonymous hangs out in this corner of the internet.
"One's list of who predicted a Trump win from the beginning depends on the circles one moves in..."
Yeah I have no idea; I just know the Wall Street Journal editorial board sure as hell didn't predict it. And none of my "real world" friends did, either.
The caveat about predicting a primary win is that no-one knew what would be thrown at Trump. It turns out that the GOP establishment saw how overwhelmingly popular Cruz and Trump were, and saw no viable way to block either from the nomination. They also knew that Hillary would win the Dem nom. There you go. Offer the most tentative "support" possible to the GOP candidate (cynical "endorsements" to be made and withdrawn optional), let the media pound away, and come October, have everyone take their daggers out as camp Trump is sacked by enemies and turncoats.
We're not in an outgoing period. Far too many people are clueless because of cocooning (hence why so many are influenced by the media and PC), and we don't even have much in the way of common heritage or history to unite us, unlike Brit Brexiteers of whom many can claim to to be defending land that's belonged to them for thousands of years. We know that many GOP primary voters had a similar sentiment, but in the general election we're talking millions upon millions of people who don't give a damn about blood and soil, and many others detest the thought of voting for a candidate who explicitly favors Western countries.
We've really got to hope that the silent majority still exists. But ya know, said "majority" isn't getting younger or more numerous. Every generation since the mid 1800's has been progressively less founding stock American.
I share a house with a Hispanic family. Husband, wife and two kids. While I was watching the debate, they were watching an old rerun of a sitcom. They are not registered to vote and have no interest in politics at all. They don't hate Trump, don't fear Trump, and don't think about Trump or Hillary. When not working, the husband likes to fix old cars and his wife likes to garden and shop. Plus they do lots of activities with the kids. This is not uncommon among Hispanics. Most are very apolitical. Democrats want the idea of a Trump Presidency to transform Hispanics into political activists or even dependable voters. It's not happening. You can't change the basic nature of people.
Question. Is it odd if I'm a bit intidimated by how clairvoyant you and Scott Adams have been on the election?
ReplyDeleteI can't come up with an example of you or Adams missing something. Both of you noted how how little impact the Kahns made, for example.
according to the la times poll, the only demo that moved decidedly in trump's direction post-lewd remarks was women (!), yet mainstream outlets have reported the opposite. it's as if no one bothers to check the best metric we have of actual changes in voter intention.
ReplyDeletegiven that panel polls are much better at measuring changes in voter intention -- see gelman's paper -- there are lots of reasons to be suspicious of the traditional polls that have come out in the last two weeks. either the la times was very poorly constructed or there is systemic and extreme clinton bias or both. i can't wait to see what happens!
The Rainbow coalition is a joke. In Cali., politics has degenerated into racial bloc voting among non-whites. Outside of Cali., we see that Hispanics are more amenable to voting GOP. The Dems being the party of layabout thug blacks probably alienates a decent amount of Mestizos. The ones who make an honest living, are here legally (perhaps for several generations at this point), and don't buy into cultural Marxism like blacks (nobody equals or bests blacks in that department) would rather have policies that encourage virtue and sovereignty. Not Dem. policies intended to re-make America into a ragged patchwork of clashing ethnicities and liberal excuse making/enabling towards various unsavory parties (junkies, homeless, criminals, fags, blacks, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, some Hispanics aren't that dumb. They see that the Dems are pushing for the garbage that will 3rd worldize the US. You don't settle in a 1st world country to see your "new" country be swamped by endless streams of strivers and criminals. As we see by how blacks have totally bought into bloc voting, all blacks care about is having a party that will make excuses for them and keep their urban machines humming. They don't buy into the founding father's vision of America as the ultimate Western country, and they never will. Not when white liberal commies have been poisoning their gullible minds with rage towards whites for the last 70 years.
Have you seen the video of blacks destroying a Trump car parked in an apartment parking lot? Perhaps young Mestizos or doofus white teens would've done the same at night and after pot and booze, and they would've done the vandalism as a goof. But with blacks, they're a sullen swarming pack who pull this crap in broad daylight with co-ethnics (some of whom are probably middle-aged) cheering them on.
"Question. Is it odd if I'm a bit intidimated by how clairvoyant you and Scott Adams have been on the election?
ReplyDeleteI can't come up with an example of you or Adams missing something. Both of you noted how how little impact the Kahns made, for example."
Curious why you lumped Agnostic together with Scott Adams (not that I think there's a problem with it). Has Agnostic ever discussed him? I don't believe he has. Scott Adams is famous... I just find this statement so curious.
Do we know you?
Tonight is the final debate. I have seen a lot of tweets from prominent leftists wondering out loud if Hillary should even attend tonight's debate. It's happened with enough frequency to where I'm wondering now if it isn't A/B testing to see if Hillary can risk a last minute cancellation for the third debate. Her supporters know that she will take a hit in the poll but they buy the rigged polling. So they say, "She might take a small hit but she's ahead by nine points so it doesn't matter!" not knowing the truth. I'm 99.9% certain she will show up tonight but at this point, nothing would surprise me anymore. With the various "scandals" gone or neutralized at this point, they have to be wondering what they can do for these final three weeks.
ReplyDeleteBoth people who predicted in some form or fashion Trump winning the GOP nomination and/or election from the beginning. It's a short list - Ann Coulter, Heartiste, and Mike Cernovich are the only others who immediately spring to mind (and myself but I'm not a public figure even by the lowly standards of writing a blog).
ReplyDeleteBut both have made wrong predictions as well. Agnostic predicted Jeff Sessions as the VP nominee up until the week of. And I think Adams has predicted Trump winning in a landslide at certain points, which doesn't look likely (I think he still has a good chance but would be very surprised at a landslide), not to mention saying it was all over the week the fainting Hillary footage came out.
I've enjoyed reading Adams' comments on the election but I don't think his "Master Persuader" model is very accurate at describing what is actually going on at the most fundamental level.
"Both people who predicted in some form or fashion Trump winning the GOP nomination and/or election from the beginning. It's a short list - Ann Coulter, Heartiste, and Mike Cernovich are the only others who immediately spring to mind (and myself but I'm not a public figure even by the lowly standards of writing a blog)."
ReplyDeleteOne's list of who predicted a Trump win from the beginning depends on the circles one moves in and I doubt Anonymous hangs out in this corner of the internet.
I'm just curious, but he seems too timid to talk.
That's one small consolation about changing demographics, the politics will be much more interesting in the Latin American tradition.
ReplyDelete"One's list of who predicted a Trump win from the beginning depends on the circles one moves in..."
ReplyDeleteYeah I have no idea; I just know the Wall Street Journal editorial board sure as hell didn't predict it. And none of my "real world" friends did, either.
The caveat about predicting a primary win is that no-one knew what would be thrown at Trump. It turns out that the GOP establishment saw how overwhelmingly popular Cruz and Trump were, and saw no viable way to block either from the nomination. They also knew that Hillary would win the Dem nom. There you go. Offer the most tentative "support" possible to the GOP candidate (cynical "endorsements" to be made and withdrawn optional), let the media pound away, and come October, have everyone take their daggers out as camp Trump is sacked by enemies and turncoats.
ReplyDeleteWe're not in an outgoing period. Far too many people are clueless because of cocooning (hence why so many are influenced by the media and PC), and we don't even have much in the way of common heritage or history to unite us, unlike Brit Brexiteers of whom many can claim to to be defending land that's belonged to them for thousands of years. We know that many GOP primary voters had a similar sentiment, but in the general election we're talking millions upon millions of people who don't give a damn about blood and soil, and many others detest the thought of voting for a candidate who explicitly favors Western countries.
We've really got to hope that the silent majority still exists. But ya know, said "majority" isn't getting younger or more numerous. Every generation since the mid 1800's has been progressively less founding stock American.
I share a house with a Hispanic family. Husband, wife and two kids. While I was watching the debate, they were watching an old rerun of a sitcom. They are not registered to vote and have no interest in politics at all. They don't hate Trump, don't fear Trump, and don't think about Trump or Hillary. When not working, the husband likes to fix old cars and his wife likes to garden and shop. Plus they do lots of activities with the kids. This is not uncommon among Hispanics. Most are very apolitical. Democrats want the idea of a Trump Presidency to transform Hispanics into political activists or even dependable voters. It's not happening. You can't change the basic nature of people.
ReplyDelete