They are reporting that Republicans are trying to call Trump to call off his lap dogs, and he is ignoring their calls.
Sums up his Presidency.
Sums up his Presidency.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obviously this is what he was hoping would happen. We are about to see whether the Democrats have any spine or not.They are reporting that Republicans are trying to call Trump to call off his lap dogs, and he is ignoring their calls.
Sums up his Presidency.
So who's going to win?
For what it's worth. Here's Jim Rickards current opinion.
[TD valign="top"]
When I predicted Trump’s victory over Hillary in 2016, my forecast was not a lucky guess. It was based on a rigorous model. My model used complexity theory, behavioural psychology, history, and applied mathematics, especially Bayes’ theorem, both to shoot down the ‘Hillary wins’ narrative and to build the case for Trump from the ground up.
The first step was to reverse engineer the polls to get at a more accurate result. Polls typically showed Hillary with a five- to seven-point advantage nationally and about four points in some of the swing states. Based on polls alone, that would indicate a landslide victory for Hillary. But the polls were badly skewed.
In polling, you must decide if you’re going to poll all adults, registered voters only, or likely voters only. It’s easier and cheaper to poll all adults, but that’s not a good sample of those who actually vote since almost half of American voters don’t vote. Polling registered voters is better, but even that sample is flawed because many registered voters don’t vote either.
Polling only likely voters is the most accurate method, but it’s expensive because you have to screen out many points of contact and you have to ask more questions before you can make a determination that someone is a ‘likely’ voter.
Polling Democrats predicts a Democrat will win
The second step is to decide how many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to include in the sample. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, so it makes sense to include more Democrats in the sample. But how many more? Many pollsters were including, say, 58% Democrats and 42% Republicans (ignoring Independents for the moment).
The actual skew is about 54% Democrats and 46% Republicans. By oversampling Democrats, the polls are rigged to favour the Democratic candidate. (By the way, you can discover this information if you look at the polling company press release and appendices, not just by reading the headline numbers in the media. Most people don’t bother to get into this level of detail.)
Once you know these flaws, you can reverse engineer the result to produce something closer to an accurate poll. In late October 2016, polls showing Hillary with a four-point lead were actually showing Trump with a slight lead once you adjusted for the sample skew. That was an important clue that Trump would win.
How to gamble away your lead
Betting odds are also easy to reject as a reliable guide to election outcomes. The reason is that bookies are not dopes. Participants are betting real money. A bookie (or the computer equivalent) does not set odds based on whom he expects to win; he sets odds based on the weight of money. If a lot of money is betting Hillary will win, the bookie will give Hillary short odds and Trump long odds in order to make a spread regardless of who wins.
There’s good evidence that, because college-educated voters favour Democrats more than all voters on average, betting markets reflect higher-income participants who make more money (because of college) and therefore bet more money in accordance with their biases (because they can afford it). The problem is that in a voting booth, money doesn’t matter. You get one vote whether you went to college or not and whether you are rich or poor.
Betting markets provide useful information if you can discover the number of actual bets for one side or the other. My advice for analysts is to ignore the odds and ignore the money; just count the number of bets. That’s much more like the number of votes on election day. If you made that adjustment in 2016, you could also see that Trump was slightly ahead.
Finally, betting markets are easy to manipulate. If George Soros-sponsored groups can spread tens of millions of dollars around to support far-left causes (they do), then it’s just as easy to divert some of that money to paint the tape in the betting markets. That’s one more reason to discount what the betting markets say.
Just open your eyes and look out the window
In addition to reverse engineering the polls and deconstructing betting odds, I also rely on anecdotal evidence. Professional statisticians don’t use anecdotal evidence because it’s difficult to quantify and plug into standard models.
But elections are about the behaviour of real people and anecdotal evidence is the best indicator of what real people are doing. It may not be quantitative, but it is highly revealing, especially if you keep an open mind and look at both sides.
In the summer of 2016, I took a bus ride from Spokane to Moses Lake in central Washington state. A lot of my fellow analysts are flying around in private jets or glued to their computer screens. A four-hour trip on a Greyhound bus is a great way to make contact with everyday Americans and observe their farms and neighbourhoods.
I saw row after row of ‘Donald Trump for President’ signs in some towns and none for Hillary Clinton. That’s not a scientific poll, but it was good evidence that Trump has struck a chord with the American people and was going to outperform expectations.
All of these techniques apply today. The polls are still skewed (but can be reverse engineered). The betting odds are still stacked by the weight of money (but can be adjusted once you know the number of bets, not the amount of money per bet). Anecdotal evidence is still ignored, but it’s available and extremely powerful.
The other day I looked out on the Piscataqua River that forms the border between Maine and New Hampshire. I saw a motorboat proudly flying two American flags and a large ‘Trump for President’ flag. I have yet to see any Biden banners on any boats anywhere.
All the best,
Jim Rickards,[/TD]
Surely you impeach him again. Just to fu** with him.
It's ultimatum time, if Trump fails to act on this he should be given a clear message about the consequences of his inaction.Wowsers even Boris Johnson has come out and spoken about this disgrace. Diaper Don still in hiding.
It's ultimatum time, if Trump fails to act on this he should be given a clear message about the consequences of his inaction.
Seems he has posted a pre-recorded video on Twitter.It's ultimatum time, if Trump fails to act on this he should be given a clear message about the consequences of his inaction.
The entire ANTIFA movement has been justified. The fascists are actually storming US political centres. Police need to treat this like the terrorist activity it is.They already went with "ANTIFA does terror all the time, so it's OK for us to invade DC"
Yes, but that was before the invasion in DC. He needs to be told what the consequences of inaction after the invasion in DC are, in simple stupid language.Did you hear his speech to his supporters today?
View attachment 1036738
Wow those losers reallllllll took losing badly.
Wonder what would have happened if they were African American or Muslim and did this?
They are reporting that Republicans are trying to call Trump to call off his lap dogs, and he is ignoring their calls.
Sums up his Presidency.
This would be wonderful if it happens.Remembering right now trump - who is coming off a tad unhinged....
has the nuclear codes.....
View attachment 1036986
Republican Mich McConnell sums it up well