he is a huge recipient of eminent domain abuse in NJ. But again, he is entertainment value. He says something and everybody runs to respond.Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad
he is a huge recipient of eminent domain abuse in NJ. But again, he is entertainment value. He says something and everybody runs to respond.
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Keep em coming daily, please. (I don't Facebook)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gentleman is defined as someone who knows how to play the accordion, and doesn't.
One comment, and then I'll stop.
When it comes to Trump, there has to be some margin between "ignoring political correctness" and "general assholery." Giving full voice to your id, heedless of the consequences, isn't an act of bravery, it's an act of douchery. Besides, Trump is only there to lob grenades and disrupt any substantive talk about policy. He'll bring the "entertainment value," sure, but a discussion about "the issues" has never been improved by his inclusion. He's just a train wreck too disastrous to turn away from. You all know this already.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
QFFTWhen it comes to Trump, there has to be some margin between "ignoring political correctness" and "general assholery."
Democrat, Republican... its the difference between a knee or a punch to the nut sack.
To the contrary, I think he could very well *force* substantive talk about policy - some policy, anyway. Primary season is typically just a bunch of rehearsed soundbytes by the front-runners, who hope that the smaller and/or more fringe guys who actually want to talk issues will run out of gas and bow out before the favorites actually have to respond to them.
When the fringe guy becomes the front-runner - even if it's not expected to last - it introduces an interesting twist to the process, because as long as Trump maintains a head of steam into the debates, then the Jeb Bushs of the world may actually have to take a stand on something specific, long before they ever expected to have to.
When, if EVER, has any politician talked straight-up about policy without lacing their talking-points with poetic pandering to the voting base that already supports them. 99% of all politicians are gas-bags. 50% of them are criminals of some-sort-or-another.
When it comes to Trump, I think you have some seriously unfounded optimism. I think what you say in general could happen, but not with this guy.
Besides the polls at the moment are useless. If someone is at 15% and someone else is at 10%, and there is a 5% margin of error, it means that no one is ahead of anyone. That's the kind of polling being reported at the moment. There's no story there, but it's what the newsies want to cover, so they do.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
In general there is almost no correlation between what a politician says while campaigning and what they say (and do) when in office. You all know this too. With Trump, I really do believe that he is wearing his heart on his sleeve and will do what he says. Yes, that does indeed scare me.
I am remaining optimistic in the hope that he stimulates some real debate on the issues he is raising. And it will be very fun to watch him debate any other candidate on these issues - true entertainment value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gentleman is defined as someone who knows how to play the accordion, and doesn't.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
If there were "margin of error" issues, then different candidates would have the lead in different polls. Trump has consistently polled upward over the last couple of weeks and now maintains a lead in all polls. Therefore, the likelihood that this is a margin of error matter would not appear likely - for now, he is the clear Republican front-runner. As I said in my earlier post, I doubt this will last, but if he ever hits 20% in one of the early polls... that's huge. 20% is more than anybody thought he could get if the field was much, much smaller.
In any event, this isn't about the viability of Trump the presidential candidate. It's about him polling strong enough for long enough to make the debates much more entertaining than they otherwise would be (if one is entertained by the process getting turned on its head, which I definitely am).
As a person who has a Master's Degree in Statistics AND who actually uses statistic all day long in my day job, I do feel qualified to remind people about sampling as it pertains to "official polls";
Point 1) the sample size taken for the "polls" are VERY SMALL in relation to the voting population, therefore, the "confidence-level" of said polling output is also very small in being a "true representation" of the population.
Point 2) Many polls draw their sample in a biased way. IE: Fox News polls their readers. Most Fox News readers are ALREADY slanted in a particular direction so the poll results reflect that bias. Ergo the poll results again do not reflect the larger population (or put another way) the confidence-level of said polling results is also low due to biasing. (same biasing applies to CNN, Huffington Post, etc...you get the drift)
Point 3) (Not statistically valid) People will SAY one thing in a poll but once they are standing in front of the ballot box, they DO something different.
Just my 2.112 Cents
Then you should know that accurate polls with a small margins of error can be done with very small sample sizes. This is why most contemporary political polls (on the eves of the elections) are pretty accurate.
ONLY if the sampling pool is RANDOMLY selected can small sample-sizes be somewhat accurate. (Still, the calculated confidence level will be lower than is statistically desired, but can yield strong predictive results)
Polling post-election speaks directly to my point 3.
Anyone who believes that deserves the government they get.
Cobra handling and cocaine use are a bad mix.
We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
It won't be visible through the air
And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973
you can also phrase or word the poll so you get the result you want. A good example is when the periodic person out to prove a point asks the people on the street if they would support a ban on dihydrogen monoxide.
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
bite me
oh, did I inadvertently type that?
"Alienated-so alien I go!"
You're clearly a "glass half full" guy...
-=Will you stand by me against the cold night, or are you afraid of the ice?=-
Actually, this is not so much an example of "trying to get the result you want." It's more an example of how people are eager to have an opinion, even if they don't understand the issue or question in the first place. The "person out to prove a point" was not interested in "banning water," but in demonstrating 1. most people are eager to express an opinion, regardless of their understanding, and, less importantly, 2. Most people don't understand basic chemistry lingo. He ably demonstrated both points.
The most important conclusion, in this regard, is that if this were a vote, and not a poll, and if dihydrogen monoxide were successfully banned as a result of this hypothetical vote, the disastrous consequences of such an action would be due to an uninformed-yet-opinionated voting majority. It's my considered opinion that the "Strong Opinion" characteristic of that voting block is more important than the "uninformed" characteristic--people without strong feelings seldom make the effort to vote in the first place. Therefore, if you want people to vote on an issue, you must create strong opinions--this is more important to the interested parties than giving voters correct information.
Once you have their opinion on your side, in fact, it's rather easy to strengthen that opinion, feeding misinformation to the opinionated. It doesn't matter what the "truth" is; what matters is how convinced and how active your voters will be. Thus, Fox News.
Well, I'm looking at it.
I had a friend who was very conscientious and won a local government seat of some sort. When I said he might be the only non-criminal in office he took major offence. But after 2 years he readily agreed with me, and quit the post.
Not because things are blatantly corrupt, but because politicians have to make so many trade-offs and deals to appease the majority, or the people who fund their campaigns, or who support the "village" is a significant way. It has got to be hard to stick to your principles on an issue if someone who funds the childrens program in the town (or something else that is a well used community service) feels differently and will pull out if they don't get something they want.
A "greater good" question? Sometimes, but then there is also inadvertent blackmail of the "I remember when you did/said this" type (and a willingness to make it public).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gentleman is defined as someone who knows how to play the accordion, and doesn't.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks