Posted October 19, 2020 17 minutes ago, Mannyb said: @Forestluv AOC and Biden like Trudeau AOC doesn’t like Trudeau. AOC likes Singh. You seem to want to place AOC and Biden close together. The left isn’t a monolithic group. The left is a spectrum with a range of different groups: anarchist communes, socialists, democratic socialists, neoliberals etc. There is a reason AOC won’t endorse Biden - because he is very far away from her ideologically. And you are listing right-wing gaffes of AOC. That is not the measure of intelligence. Have you watched any of her extended 30min+ interviews or congressional hearings? Those go deeper and are a better measure of intellect. And it is totally normal for a green level politician to say no to a blue level pundit. She is TWO conscious levels higher than Ben and she has a higher platform. It makes no sense for her to compromise her integrity. Just like it’s totally reasonable to say no to a QAnon spokesperson or a flat-earther. And Ben would not “embarrass her”. Stage blue does not embarrass a solid stage green. That would be like saying an algebra student would embarrass a calculus professor. The only people who would think AOC got embarrassed would be stage blue people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 @Mannyb If you valued truth you would stop calling half the population socialist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-says-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-again/5PZYFOQKCSBAOUAO6NXNSLP4UY/ I just found these sources and they now really worry me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Hardkill said: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-says-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-again/5PZYFOQKCSBAOUAO6NXNSLP4UY/ I just found these sources and they now really worry me. This guy is a hack. He doesn’t include polls in his “model” because he says the polls failed in 2016 and that 2020 is a carbon copy. This is willfully ignorant - the 2020 polling dynamics are very different than in 2016. In 2016, Hilary and Trump went back and forth over the campaign. On Election Day, Hilary had a slight lead and some forecasters like 538 showed considerable chances of a Trump win. In 2020 Biden has the largest, most consistent lead in modern presidential elections. Clinton wasn’t even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Hardkill said: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-says-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-again/5PZYFOQKCSBAOUAO6NXNSLP4UY/ Lol Only in the twisted world of FoxNews, where black is white, white is black, and the anti-Christ is God. You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) The polls are quite strong this time, not sure to believe or not. Fingers crossed. Praying for a Biden landslide. Edited October 19, 2020 by Preety_India INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues Cleared out ignore list today. .. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 6 hours ago, Leo Gura said: Lol Only in the twisted world of FoxNews, where black is white, white is black, and the anti-Christ is God. Really scary that something like a quarter of the country is using this as their primary news source, and no surprise that a propaganda channel has people terrified and misinformed. I went back and watched some Walter Cronkite footage from the sixties not too long ago, and the contrast in the quality of TV news reporting between then and now is pretty shocking. I suppose good investigative journalism still exists, but Corporatism really ripped the heart out of news sources that reach a wide audience. I'm writing a philosophy book! Check it out at : https://7provtruths.org/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 Fox News is a really big thing stopping a healthy green revolution. I wouldn’t say combat it with a left wing propaganda wing because I don’t like propaganda but if they were a bit more honest. CNN has a bias too but it’s a lot more subtle, Fox News is extremely biased and easy to see, yet they are both corporate news who lie so people equate the two. the biggest sham isn’t Fox News being propaganda, I think people know that, it’s that most people equate Fox News and cnn and msnbc as the same. yes all lie and are biased but one is literally living in a different reality Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 8 hours ago, Leo Gura said: Lol Only in the twisted world of FoxNews, where black is white, white is black, and the anti-Christ is God. You are the public here my bald troll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 The business model for a 24 hour news network just by its very nature invites the use of manipulative tactics to retain viewership (and provide eyeballs for their advertisers). That said, anyone claiming false equivalency between Fox News and MSNBC or CNN is either massively misinformed, or intentionally making a bad faith argument. I would think one solution for this would be public investments in organizations that aren't reliant on a toxic business model to support high quality investigative journalism. That could be something like an American equivalent of the BBC (which theoretically would be PBS if it were funded), or more support for privately owned but reputable news source like the New York Times that have a less problematic business model to support its journalism. I'm writing a philosophy book! Check it out at : https://7provtruths.org/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 13 hours ago, Forestluv said: This guy is a hack. He doesn’t include polls in his “model” because he says the polls failed in 2016 and that 2020 is a carbon copy. This is willfully ignorant - the 2020 polling dynamics are very different than in 2016. In 2016, Hilary and Trump went back and forth over the campaign. On Election Day, Hilary had a slight lead and some forecasters like 538 showed considerable chances of a Trump win. In 2020 Biden has the largest, most consistent lead in modern presidential elections. Clinton wasn’t even close. Yeah, I didn't get why he did not include polls in his "model." However, he seems confident that he is right because he has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996. He further claims that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Hardkill said: However, he seems confident that he is right because he has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996. He further claims that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced. So he made a model that doesn't even work in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 13 hours ago, Leo Gura said: Lol Only in the twisted world of FoxNews, where black is white, white is black, and the anti-Christ is God. Yeah, that's why I don't like FoxNews at all. However, what about that article I linked underneath the Norpoth vid that discusses the prediction of this data guru/professor Bela Stantic, who also thinks that Trump is going to win again? He said that "his lab’s analysis is more reliable than opinion polling, because it involves a significantly larger sample size." He also says that "people also tend to be more honest when expressing their opinions on social media than when a pollster quizzes them." Furthermore, he said that he finds Biden to be surprisingly more polarizing than Hillary after analyzing the comments on Biden's social media posts. Furthermore, this data guru correctly predicted the 2016 US election, Scott Morrison’s win last year, the Brexit vote, correctly predicted last 7 Melbourne cups, and a number of past major events correctly. This really worries me even more than Norpoth's prediction. Here another website for the same article on Bela Stantic and his 2020 presidential election prediction that I just posted before: https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-reveals-donald-trump-is-on-track-to-win-again/news-story/cc04c8525c3046c2387092d2cfaafa38 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 39 minutes ago, Hardkill said: However, he seems confident that he is right because he has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996. 4 of those 6 were clear predictions by polls and relatively easy calls. 46 minutes ago, Hardkill said: He further claims that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced. How does he do in presidential elections in which his model chooses a 10pt underdog? My hunch is he is 0-0 and about to be 0-1. There are many ways to spin odds. Be careful in Vegas. . . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 I will trust my intuition over any mechanical model. Mechanical models are used by people who lack intuition and intelligence. You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 16 hours ago, Hardkill said: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-says-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-again/5PZYFOQKCSBAOUAO6NXNSLP4UY/ I just found these sources and they now really worry me. Not sure what's the point of Fox news to try and convince their viewers that Trump is winning by a landslide when he is really not. Is it really helping Trump? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 19 minutes ago, Hardkill said: Here another website for the same article on Bela Stantic and his 2020 presidential election prediction that I just posted before: https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/us-election-data-guru-bela-stantic-reveals-donald-trump-is-on-track-to-win-again/news-story/cc04c8525c3046c2387092d2cfaafa38 I do respect a prognosticator that comes out early as Stantic did. That is much riskier than waiting to late October. Yet is month-old prediction is already wrong: "“It is maybe early, but I can tell you that the trend we identified in advance last time is holding.” It's not holding. Biden's lead has significantly increased by 3% in the polling aggregate since Stantic released his prediction. Stantic's decisive state is Minnesota for Trump?! Really? Trump gave up on Minnesota months ago and Biden is up 9.1% in the polling aggregate. It isn't a swing state and even Trump's team has conceded it. Flipping Minnesota alone would flip Stantic's model to a Biden victory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, 4201 said: Not sure what's the point of Fox news to try and convince their viewers that Trump is winning by a landslide when he is really not. Is it really helping Trump? In terms of psychology, people don't like to be associated with losing. Imagine a city's sports team had a 90% chance of losing the game. How many fans are going to show up to the game? Not many. Yet I also don't think suggesting a blowout win for Trump is good for driving up Republican turnout. If we are fabricating data here and bullshitting our audience, I would tell them we are up a few points and need to turnout in force to help Trump win. Similar to telling our sportfans that we are slight favorites - yet we need to pack the stadium and makes lots of noise to help our team. Telling their audience Trump has a 91% chance of winning, likely calms down some jitters that Trump is a big underdog. Yet unfortunately, it plays into the narrative that Trump is a lock and the only way he could lose as by Democrat election fraud. There are a lot of Trumpers that think there is no fair way that Trump could lose. This makes it more difficult to have a smooth transition of power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 20, 2020 12 minutes ago, Forestluv said: In terms of psychology, people don't like to be associated with losing. Imagine a city's sports team had a 90% chance of losing the game. How many fans are going to show up to the game? Not many. Yet I also don't think suggesting a blowout win for Trump is good for driving up Republican turnout. If we are fabricating data here and bullshitting our audience, I would tell them we are up a few points and need to turnout in force to help Trump win. Similar to telling our sportfans that we are slight favorites - yet we need to pack the stadium and makes lots of noise to help our team. Telling their audience Trump has a 91% chance of winning, likely calms down some jitters that Trump is a big underdog. Yet unfortunately, it plays into the narrative that Trump is a lock and the only way he could lose as by Democrat election fraud. There are a lot of Trumpers that think there is no fair way that Trump could lose. This makes it more difficult to have a smooth transition of power. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
