Sunday, July 03, 2016

Nate Silverbs 16:18

The following is a response to a friend who wondered about my reaction to this. It's germane to subjects that have dominated the blog for the last several months so it's worth sharing, keeping in mind that it's more free-wheeling than I generally (try to) allow myself to be here. I've added a few relevant links.

---

So Silver announces the launch of 538's statistical models for the 2016 general election. At the time of launch they give Trump a 20% chance. As new polls come out, the odds will change. Unless you're trading on the prediction markets, it's just a dog and pony show.

Funny that it goes live following several weeks of a Trump polling slump. Where was he a month ago when Trump had a slight edge over Hillary in aggregate? That plus economic conditions, which Silver says increase Trump's odds relative to polling alone, suggest his model may have had Trump as the odds-on favorite then [the model picks up almost three weeks after Trump had the narrow lead--at that point it shows Hillary 66%, Trump 34%].

Nate Silver was spectacularly wrong about the primaries. It's lame that he tries to save face by saying his poll model predicted 52 of 57 states or whatever. BFD, so did the RCP's averaging of recent state polls (minus the unreliable ones from dubious sources) prior to a primary taking place. Silver's being prudent here, copying what the betting markets show and then dressing it up quantitatively. And for the record, there were people--not just amateurs like yours truly, but also significant media figures like Scott Adams--who got it right.

Also, to say Trump underperformed polling by looking at state wins is misleading. He underperformed early and then outperformed late. In Arizona and then in every state after Wisconsin he blew the polls out of the water, even when the race was still on (in NY and the 5 NE states + Indiana). I have no idea how that'll translate to the general election, but it's worth pointing out that, based on polling averages, Remain was expected to win by 2 points. Instead, it lost by the same.

That said, it seems plausible, I guess--as plausible as the local news station's meteorologist making a weather forecast for the Thursday four weeks from tomorrow. None of the debates, which will be the most watched in history, have happened. Conventions haven't happened. VP nominations haven't happened. Trump will blow the sub-$2 million fundraising figure out of the water in June. He's soliciting hard.

On the other hand, as I've said all along, the demographics just keep getting worse for Republicans. They got crushed in '08 (which was predictable enough) but then lost pretty bad in '12, which should've been an easy win based on traditional metrics (basically everything was against Obama except for the fact that he was an incumbent). A year ago the markets had it something like 60%-40% that the Democrats would win the White House in '16. I don't think my prediction that we may never see another Republican president elected in our lifetimes is hyperbolic.

It is nice to see Silver putting pressure on what I've been saying for awhile about the electoral college. Trump's national polling deficit relative to '12 is relegated almost exclusively to the deep red central corridor states where he's going to win anyway. If his margins of victories in Utah, Texas, Kansas, and Idaho are in the single-digits instead of the double-digits but he wins Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, it's worth it.

Just in time, too, Quinnipiac--which is one of the best--comes out showing Hillary with a 2 point lead nationally, while Rasmussen, the only one included in the current RCP average that is of likely voters (always better than registered voters) has Trump up by 4.

Trump has a problem getting traditional Republicans on board. But Hillary has a problem motivating traditional Democrats, who aren't excited at all about her.

Again, a month ago Trump was slightly ahead. With things swinging that much month from month, it seems foolhardy to use current polling to confidently project a November outcome. The Gravis one is "weighted by anticipated voting demographics". Is Gravis anticipating a 10%+ drop in black turnout?

Parenthetically, a Hillary presidency still makes the outcome of the '16 election cycle better than I would've conceived of a year ago.

To have someone as nakedly corrupt and devoid of any notable achievements throughout the course of decades in 'public service', running on keeping the immigrant floodgates open and disarming the American public while kowtowing to racialist thugs like Black Lives Matter, beat a man who not only refused to apologize for considering the interests of white middle Americans but even had the gall to advocate in their favor at the expense of those outside the inner concentric circles of national loyalty--well, it's difficult to think of much that could do more to push us towards the long-term goal of secession and the disintegration of the empire.

Anything that causes Middle America--and white men specifically--to withdrawal consent from an American empire that plunders the fruits of their labor while treating them as moral reprobate for being white men is a good thing.

Five years ago Brexit would've been laughed off as a pipe dream. Yes, the new government will try to gum it up so that it doesn't happen, but no one said the globalists would go down without a fight!

The best line of attack is to have state governments simply refuse to enforce federal laws. The tenth amendment center does yeoman's work on this front. They pushed for Utah to refuse to provide water for the federal government's NSA facility in the state (it needs a bazillion gallons a day to cool all the servers). The federal government doesn't have the apparatus to run everything--anything, really--so if the anti-federalist push comes from the state level, where it is doable, then we're talking about something more than just individual preppers standing up to leviathan.

The federal government has the military, yes, but history is replete with examples of some central authority ordering its military to do X, Y, and Z when that military, sympathizing with its supposed targets, ends up flipping sides.

5 comments:

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

"...basically everything was against Obama except for the fact that he was an incumbent."

And let's not forget the affirmative action factor: "Uh oh, if we fire the black guy there's gonna be trouble."

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Audacious Epigone,

There are lots of ways a non comply movement can work. Go to this link and look for the guys with guns and "Don't Comply" riot shields at a Trump rally in Dallas Texas.

The guys in those photos are as Texas activists for the homeless who were prevented by law from feeding the Homeless. The City of Dallas told them to stop after the law was passed, the activists said no, and began carrying firearms openly while continuing to feed people.

Ya gotta love Texans, they started Open carry of firearms to protect their right to feed the homeless -


http://www.trueactivist.com/dont-comply-activists-break-the-law-to-feed-the-homeless-in-dallas/



"A group of activists have been making waves in Dallas, Texas recently by intentionally breaking laws that they feel are unjust, in some very interesting ways. This week, the group calling themselves “Don’t Comply” began feeding the homeless without permission from the city, which is required by law. The law requires anyone who wants to share food with more than 75 people to receive permission from the city, get a permit and pay a fee.

Don’t Comply defied the order with their “Feed the Need event” which they host every year. It wasn’t long after they began that code enforcers from the city showed up to serve them paperwork and insist that they get a permit. Lead organizer Murdoch Pizgatti told the city workers that he had no intention of filling out their paperwork.

The effort was able to feed hundreds of homeless people throughout the day, and many members even donated warm winter clothes and other necessities.

Surprisingly, feeding the homeless is being outlawed across the US, with many cities require fees and permits for the simple act of charity.

Interestingly enough, Don’t Comply made headlines earlier this month for an entirely different type of protest. In addition to being advocates for the homeless, Don’t Comply is also heavily involved in gun rights and open carry activism. Earlier this month, they staged a mock mass shooting at “gun free zones” to demonstrate how long it took police to arrive. Their protest was controversial, but actually changed the minds of many who rely on police as their only source of protection.

One of the biggest obstacles that homeless people face is actually the police and the government, as we reported this week, in the early morning of December 15th, Denver police forced dozens of homeless community members of Resurrection Village into blizzard conditions. Since their tiny homes action on Oct. 24th, Resurrection Village members have been sleeping near various unused empty lots owned by the Denver Housing Authority and had set up tents the night before to provide temporary shelter from the impending snowstorm."



chris said...

"On the other hand, as I've said all along, the demographics just keep getting worse for Republicans. They got crushed in '08 (which was predictable enough) but then lost pretty bad in '12, which should've been an easy win based on traditional metrics (basically everything was against Obama except for the fact that he was an incumbent). A year ago the markets had it something like 60%-40% that the Democrats would win the White House in '16. I don't think my prediction that we may never see another Republican president elected in our lifetimes is hyperbolic."

What happens then? If demographic reality is such that the permanent rise of SJW'ism/Critical Theory politics is all but assured, what happens to White America? Do they just submit and die off as they are demographically overwhelmed? Is there any real hope of secession or will the only solution be (attempted) civil war? How likely is success of such civil war? Wouldn't the Democrats just bring in immigrant after immigrant for drafting to rape pillage and plunder White communities like the Yankees did with Irish immigrants against the South?

White communities can't white flight themselves away anywhere, as USA is the bellwether for the rest of the Anglo world just due to the fact that the USA is the most powerful country in the world by far. What happens in USA will happen in UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand 10 or 20 years later. Europe might stand a chance if they ally with Russia, but pretty much only central and Eastern Europe and I don't think they will give a fuck about Anglos and the plight they brought about on themselves.

Seems like the only solution to this demographic reality is a Trump win and a massive repatriation of non-whites or civil war. (Not to mention a disenfranchising/disempowering of feminists and their ideology)

Dan said...

The pendulum does swing back. All of the former Communist countries are presently the most right-wing countries in the world: Russia, China, Eastern European countries (take your pick).

It was a Communist (Putin) who went reactionary after seeing his country go to hell. The Communist party went hyper-conservative in China without ever being overthrown.

I suspect it will have to be the Democrat party leading a restoration in America. Democrat mayors had to lead massive policing in the cities, and Democrats preside over America's massive abortion complex. Republicans could never have done either of these things. It would be unthinkable. Those actions require tremendous power that the right does not have. There is only one party with the power to do what needs to be done.

This is why the most important resistance for conservatives may not be trying to grab the reins of power, but to mock and humiliate those in power and spread truth. With the pain of failure felt by the existing leadership, pressure will mount for effective governance.

Austria has lately been the force in Europe fighting Merkel's third-worldification insanity, and the right was enormously influential. But the right did not succeed through gaining power. Indeed they never gained official power. Instead, by being relentless critics they forced the existing government to act better.

Therein lies the hope. Cuckservatism must be blown up like 4th of July fireworks, for it is the opposite of what needs to be done. Cuckservatism attacks dissidents when dissidents are what is needed.

Solzhenytsyn in the USSR was an incredibly influential dissident who helped intellectually destroy the USSR without every holding any position.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sgt Joe Friday,

The real test wasn't whether or not we were tolerant enough to elect a black president, it was whether or not we were tolerant enough to re-elect a black president!

Mil-Tech Bard,

Those are great examples of how to get it done, thanks.

Chris,

White flight alongside differential birthrates is just kicking the can down the road, and every step taken to get to where the can stopped to kick it again is lost time where the situation is worse than before. I wouldn't pretend to have answers to those monumental questions. My approach for now is to put everything into the identitarian/nationalist movements (of which Trump is the most conspicuous American iteration) that are surging throughout the Western world and if they aren't able to reassert control then secession through non-compliance.

Dan,

Well put. The Alt-Right is a movement--or an affiliated network of intellectual movements--whose time has come.