Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Talent -- did you see the Project Veritas stuff on Bredesen? It's extremely damning and embarrassing. I can't believe that they keep getting these people on camera talking about this shit. It's hilarious but that is the consequences of getting kid gloves treatment from the media your whole life -- you never sense the risk of an expose.

James O'keefe has teased that he has more stuff from more states. If the Republicans are smart they will use it.

[iam416]

I did, but I'm generally not a fan. I mean, it's easy enough to get candid comments and such, but I need it tied directly and substantially to the campaign. It's the evidentiary thing in me.

That said, there's no doubt in my mind that the comments are 100% true and accurate re Bredesen. And that's why the clips will have some value. You're not exposing something implausible -- like, say, a DC Circuit Ct judge running gang rape parties -- you're exposing something that is entirely believable -- in fact, it's almost more confirmation than exposing, especially in Tennessee. The Rs should have a stranglehold on that state and the Ds know it.

The fact that Ds have now taken to a general cuntfest about the Senate suggests to me they think they're going to have a very difficult time winning control any time in the next few elections. And since McConnell has more or less owned the shit out the Ds on the Senate's judicial function, that's really bad news for the Ds and, IMO, the primary source of said cuntfest.

[Hannibal]

I did, but I'm generally not a fan. I mean, it's easy enough to get candid comments and such, but I need it tied directly and substantially to the campaign. It's the evidentiary thing in me.

In this case, you have people working for the campaign in an important and official manner (who have frequent contact with Bredesen) saying this stuff. That seems like a pretty strong tie to the campaign. The guy can't credibly say that his campaign officials are lying IMHO. Either way, it looks like that seat is safe.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Project Veritas stuff is only going to preach to the choir. O'Keefe's rockstar status among conservatives also took a bit of a hit after his efforts to "OMG EXPOSE" the Washington Post and help elect a pedophile failed miserably.

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL:

hello

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rasmussen is showing Rs and Ds pretty close to even on the generic ballot. Also, Trump's approval rating there has been steady at about 49% for a couple of weeks. Historically that would mean big wins for the Rs but historical precedents probably go out the window here.

Cruz will beat Beta O'Rourke but Texas is very much in danger of flipping to blue within the next decade or so because of demographics. It only took California two generations to go from a state that elected Ronald Reagan twice to one that decriminalized the spread of AIDS. If and when Texas goes blue it's never coming back. Turn out the lights, the party's over.

I have followed Tennessee just a little bit. It looks like the R in that race is very wisely running on Trump's agenda. If she can just stick to that and convince people that Bredesen will vote against Trump's agenda then she will win comfortably. The new Project Veritas video makes her job easier.

Rasmussen IS the most reliable polling company in delivering conservatives results that they want to hear. It's not the most accurate in an objective sense, unfortunately.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Wiz

You complete me

[Kapture1]

Rasmussen IS the most reliable polling company in delivering conservatives results that they want to hear. It's not the most accurate in an objective sense, unfortunately.

one of the most accurate in 2016. you are busy citing some of the least accurate polls in 2016 because it's what leftists want to hear presumably

[Kapture1]

def attemptArgue(argument) {

if (argument.length < 10) {
//only print arguments less than 10 characters long..
//NPC's only have enough memory for soundbites and talking points.
print(argument)

}

else {
// if argument is greater than 10 characters, respond with:
print('I'm not going to waste time arguing with a Drumpf supporter.')

}

}


// now CNN can pass any argument into the function to program their NPC's:
attemptArgue('muh hippocampus');
attemptArgue('russia collusion');
attemptArgue('raise taxes');
attemptArgue('abolish ICE');

[THE_WIZARD_]

I knew DSL was gay.

[Da Geezer]

Right. So they correctly identified a trend and its cause, and, like all of the most solid of peer-reviewed science, the findings have been replicated multiple times in multiple settings. An incorrect projection of a trend's velocity negates only part of the research, and not all of it. Especially since one group's projections have no bearing on the multiple replications of the existing trend. Throwing out a non-perfect bit of heavily-replicated scholarship because it's not perfect is, of course, unjustified. A person in your position who fails to understand that is either purposefully myopic or ought to be very thankful that this isn't a meritocracy.

So, again, you either lack the conceptual understanding to comment intelligently, or you are choosing to comment from a position of willful ignorance.

Goodness, hack. Such drivel. Have you ever heard of GIGO? Your argument in entirely post hoc ergo propter hoc.This whole idea of modeling 30 years out, or being published in a peer-reviewed journal of some sort, is a "scientific" substitute for actual data analysis. Wednesday's Journal had an article by Bjorn Lomborg titled "UN Ignores Economics of Climate", subtitled "New Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus says the cost of CO2 cuts aren't worth it". Avoiding the paywall (my apologies, but you guys never read posted articles from the WSJ), the article states in pertinent part:
_____________________________

and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

gross

Hack, the earth has been warming and cooling for hundreds of years. Is the medieval warm period included in your 30-year models? What about the little ice age of 1770-1800? Of course, they aren't. Those who want to control whole populations in order to achieve a "unified global community" will always choose data that fits their pre-determined policy outcome. That's because they want power, which is interchangeable with money as we have been discussing for years now. You have the quaint notion that all men are evil, except for a very few men of gold who are altruistic, never power- or money- hungry and doing their jobs for the "common good". To all like yourself, those who want to be ruled by these few special humans, I say look at your philosophical founder, Plato, and I ask, "How did that Republic idea work out for you in Syracuse?" How do your models adjust for the nature of men to be totally depraved?

And how do any models adjust for radically disruptive technologies? Do you actually believe that what you say will happen 30 years from now will actually obtain in 2050? No reasonable person looking at history (not just the last 120 years), both in terms of technologies and of planetary temperatures, would expect you to be close in your predictions using such a tiny amount of data. You never speak of all the variables, like the temperature of the Sun or the orbit of the Earth. And you never specify Anthropormorphic GW. Of course, the earth is getting warmer, just like it did when the Vikings were growing wine grapes in Newfoundland. Was that warming caused by the Norman invasion of Europe?

But what is despicable is that you have the arrogance to chide Talent about "conceptual ignorance". You may get away with that in DC and its environs, but around here, virtue signaling is just that, virtue signaling. Unless, of course, you are one of the Men of Gold that you so admire. Then everything you say has to be accepted without evidence because you say it.

[Whitley]

The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri

And if things stay as they are on Election night you are going to have 50 Rep 49 Dem.....with a runoff in Mississiooi

[Kapture1]

The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri

And if things stay as they are on Election night you are going to have 50 Rep 49 Dem.....with a runoff in Mississiooi

better hope Ginsburg stays healthy in 2019

[iam416]

The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri

Ds have to sweep all 5, and it looks like SS Heitkamp is taking on gads of water.

As I mentioned yesterday, the other 4 races are very important for the Ds chances to retake the Senate in 2020. They need at least 2 (IMO).

[Dr. Strangelove]

one of the most accurate in 2016. you are busy citing some of the least accurate polls in 2016 because it's what leftists want to hear presumably

They were also way off in 2008 and 2012 and were way off in a number of states in 2016. A bunch of different polls (IBD, McClathcy, Marist, etc.) were close to the final margin in the popular vote.

538 says this about Rasmussen, who they give a C+ to in terms of accuracy

For instance, Rasmussen Reports deserves a lot of credit for its final, national poll of the 2016 presidential election, which had Hillary Clinton ahead by 2 percentage points, almost her exact margin of victory in the popular vote. But Rasmussen Reports polls are conducted by a Rasmussen spinoff called Pulse Opinion Research LLC, and state polls conducted by Rasmussen and Pulse Opinion Research over the past year or two have generally been mediocre.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

And it's not because 538 just hates Trump, hates conservatives, blah blah blah... they give FoxNews polls a grade of A