Lol at step 2

Lol @ Nate silver and his last minute "adjustment".

I'm not apologizing for a single thing. I throw out all the nonsense and pay attention to what's important.

Trump really manipulating the media to trick them in to building support for his position:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.fa198b1ef782

Oh wait, Daddy said all negative polls and the Washington Post are FAKE NEWS. Instead, we must go with the DADDY IS ALWAYS RIGHT theorem and assume that tremendous support, just the best support, is growing for his idiotic policies.

The last minute "adjustment" where he revised down from ~35% for Trump to 28%?

Nate silver is a fool and so was 99% of all the polling data you looked at. And you all bought it hook line and sinker.

The LA times daybreak poll and one other were the ones that were capturing what was really going on. Trump was leading the entire race except for when the access Hollywood tape came out. And he still won.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

But hey, you keep on trusting that media!

Too bad you couldn't have figured this out before the election wil.

I did. That's why I collected thousands of dollars from the members of this forum. Would you like a list? Or is your memory just bad?

What? I'm just trying to work with the argument you're presenting here. When someone pointed out to you that Nate gave Trump a 28% chance of winning on election day you accused him of making a "last minute adjustment", like I guess as a contingency plan so he'd look smart later?

What actually happened, of course, is that in the days leading up to the election Nate had him as high as ~35%! The "last minute adjustment" you speak of made him look worse after the election, not better!

Faced with this contradiction, your response is to...soldier on as if that inconsistency was never presented, and babble about liberal fools etc etc? I forget, were you like this in alpha or is this just what being down here for so long has turned you into?

No?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/nb...y-false-claim/

https://twitter.com/prageru/status/828984521987010561

The correct response was to just state his claim was absurd and let it fall out of the news cycle.

Instead...man that twitter image is a pretty hilarious but effective emotional argument for the ban.

Wow, did you not even pay attention back then? Nate Silver took a lot of **** from the MSM and other people for saying Trump had an above 1% chance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...71179484659712

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...twitter-230815


Meanwhile, places like the Huffing Paint and most of the MSM were all gaga over Trump having close to zero percent, especially because of this guy:
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/1...e-probability/

So yes, the MSM did lose quite a bit of credibility with that.

The LA Times poll was one of the least accurate, it said Trump would win the popular vote by 3% and he lost it by 2%. The difficulty for anyone was in going to a state by state level, something the LA Times did not do nor claim to do.

If the LA Times predicted that he would lose the popular vote but win the electoral college I would be truly impressed. Instead, on the measure they asked to be judged on, they were wrong.

Coincidentally it was Nate Silver arguing that the chances of a Hillary popular vote win/electoral college loss was much higher than in your typical election.

Of course facts don't matter to you, so you are just going to shout NATE SILVER IS A FOOL, YOU HAVE NO IDEA, GRRRRRRRRRRRR, MEOW CHOW again.

Yeah, CNN sucks, no argument from me there. Re: the first link, not sure what the point is, Katy Tur agrees with you? Okay. I think there are a number of flaws with her argument, the "loud" things Trump has done (like the EO) haven't distracted reporting on smaller issues that 4D chess masters would argue Trump is trying to "slip by" everyone while he's doing the louder things, but maybe that's just because I read news and don't watch television for it.

Trusting trump or trusting "the media"?

Are they even equal enough things to compare trusting about?

Which "told you so" might this be? Told you not to trust the media....but people are already free to be skeptical about media like a society. no trumps required.

It seems everyone has come down with amnesia all of a sudden and forgot about the election. I mean, 99/100 of he posters on 2+2 who bet the election lost, but everyone forgot why.

Yes, he did, which makes it extra hilarious that Wil is putting his eggs in the "no really Nate is a fool" basket (by the way, is Nate more successful than Wil? Probably) when this is by far the better argument.

trust trump the notion is giggle inducing.

While I had some minor issues with some of Nate's methodology in his model, and found his actual political punditry lacking, AND found his handling of the primary a bit insufferable, I will say that his general election model had way more going for it than pretty much every other major outlet.

In addition, Goofyballer is correct that there was no "late adjustment" done on Silver's part, it was simply the model doing what it was going to do in relation to the data going into it and the ever decreasing time frame leading into the election. That Nate accounted for the high amount of variance present is to be commended.

I think Nate silver realized something really weird was happening that he wasn't capturing with his methods. That's why he made the adjustments and the media killed him for doing so.

And of course he's more successful than me. I'm a nothing nobody that wastes my time with people like you.

Trump playing 4-D chess.

Can we take a minute to welcome our wonderful new secretary of education, Betsy DeVos. Nice to see someone with good Christian values and a pro school choice attitude in this position.

I thought it was 3 level chess? Back in the d&d days.

Sounds like that is more a problem with 2+2 than with the media. Anyway, I'm confused. Regardless of your view of media, don't you think the president should be honest with American citizens? Trolling reporters or Democrats is not a good reason for dishonesty in a president imo.

The LATimes Poll wasn't correct.

Remember, those polls measure NATIONAL support, not support in each relevant state. Most national polls had her winning by 3 or 4 points just before the election; she won by 2.1%. Pretty accurate, actually; more so than the Obama/Romney election.

What was off was specific state polling in WI/MI/PA/NC/OH/IA. All 3-6pts, all in Trump's favor. Why? We'll never know. I imagine that there was at least some Shy Tory going on.

Speaking of WOW!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...noaa-manipula/

You may want to check the rest of your sources.

Exactly. National polls were as about as meaningful as the popular vote itself, to the actual outcome of the election.

The shy Tory vote is what tipped those states without a doubt. i.e. "the silent majority" which some people mentioned mid last year turned out to be a significant factor which polling didn't take into account.

1. It will never stop being funny that conservatives cry endlessly about the sources liberals use but apply ZERO scrutiny whatsoever to their own, see: mongo using the Washington Times here
2. While this article is great and everything, what does it have to do with "my sources"?

Congratulations to Betsy Devos!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...secretary.html

While Goofy Baller is posting the insignificant or fake news stories, I'll be posting true, positive stories of how this country is finally becoming great again.