Unfortunately I have Whiny Trixie on ignore so I missed out being able to read those last 2 pearls of wisdom. Originally Posted by Jam3768b/s! You dont have that kind of control! You cant help it!
bajahajahahahajjjajajajaja
.Balderdash! There's nothing magical about a printing press. This has been done for years -- look at Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe and various Latin American countries. Although based on your excellent review of Miss Stephanie's book, I guess she has decided to jack up taxes, probably on the "wealthy", in addition to running huge deficits. So the radical wing of the Democratic party can do its two favorite things -- hand out free stuff and demonize the rich.
The second half of the 1990s was a truly remarkable era. Government spending as a percentage of GDP (which in my view is always how it should be viewed) fell by more than three full percentage points.
Of course, strong growth abetted by productivity and technological advances in the dotcom era helped, but policy was headed in the right direction. The robust growth was -- I believe at least in part -- a consequence of those better policy decisions.
Bill Clinton intoned at the outset of a mid-'90s State of the Union address that:
"The era of big government is over!"
Shrewd political advisor Dick Morris got Bill to go all-in on the concept of "triangulation," after which he cooperated with Newt to restrain the growth of spending, and even cut the capital gains tax! (From 28% to 20%.)
Now I'm afraid we are in for a very difficult and chaotic decade, since the new rallying cry might as well be:
"The era of big government being over is -- FUCKING WELL ANCIENT HISTORY!!"
(Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead with Professor Stephanie's Magical MMT Machine.)
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
With Trump out of office the GOP will get back to the party of austerity!
I'd add that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans and Bill Clinton also lowered capital gains taxes and reformed welfare. Clinton's second term, and his first two years when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, were like night and day. Originally Posted by Tiny
Polls are undercounting the people who don’t want to give their real opinions. If they had corrected anything, why didn’t they see Ron DeSantis winning in his 2018 race for governor in Florida? They made the exact same mistake with his opponent, Andrew Gillum. [The final RealClearPolitics polling average in that race had Gillum up by 3.6 percentage points. DeSantis won by 0.4 percentage points.] This wasn’t some random state’s race; this was the hottest, meanest — neck and neck races for governor and senator in Florida in an off-year election. Every single major player was polling that state. And 100 percent of them got it wrong; we got it right.
It's going to be MONTHS of fun coming back here and poking the dumbshits that all KNEW Biden was going to win... It'll probably save me money on hobbying since I will have so much fun making fun of the libtards on here Originally Posted by texassapperHow do you figure, JL?
The number of additional seats the Democrats need to win for a voting majority depends on who wins the White House, since any Senate tie of 50-50 is broken by the sitting vice-president. If Trump wins re-election, the Democrats probably need three states, in addition to Arizona and Colorado, for the majority; if Biden wins, the Democrats probably need only two more.
“Probably” because there is enough time for races not mentioned here to shift and change the calculus.
My guesses were taken straight off of predictit.org's web site. This is a betting site. I think that's a better indicator than polls, as people are actually risking their money. Originally Posted by TinyThe problem with that logic is that it's based on conventional wisdom, not necessarily actual subject matter expertise. Most of the people placing bets are exposed to the Mainstream media polls which more than a week out from the election are designed to influence votes not predict them. Hence the "always tightening" last week changes to the polling.
The problem with that logic is that it's based on conventional wisdom, not necessarily actual subject matter expertise. Most of the people placing bets are exposed to the Mainstream media polls which more than a week out from the election are designed to influence votes not predict them. Hence the "always tightening" last week changes to the polling.The betting sites actually are giving Trump a higher probability of winning than what statisticians using polling data are coming up with. Nate Silver, the most widely quoted, is currently giving Trump an 11% probability of winning the 2020 election. He gave Trump a 28.6% probability of winning in 2016.
I prefer more common sense predictors that are either proxies or leading indicators.Everything I see including the campaigns last minute schedules tells me Trump is going to win... and I'm starting to suspect that it's going to be far outside the margin of Fraud for the Democrats to steal. Originally Posted by texassapper
The problem with that logic is that it's based on conventional wisdom, not necessarily actual subject matter expertise. Most of the people placing bets are exposed to the Mainstream media polls which more than a week out from the election are designed to influence votes not predict them. Hence the "always tightening" last week changes to the polling.Could you go into detail as to what your "common sense predictors" are?
I prefer more common sense predictors that are either proxies or leading indicators.Everything I see including the campaigns last minute schedules tells me Trump is going to win... and I'm starting to suspect that it's going to be far outside the margin of Fraud for the Democrats to steal. Originally Posted by texassapper