[poorgradstudent]

[quote=zk][quote=livinincali]

There seem to be problems with the data in general. There’s evidence that NASA went back and modified the data after the fact. That’s something you should never do in a scientific process. Sure it’s fine apply adjustments to the data in a particular study but you should never change the underlying data. Are they just trying to fit the data to their wrong model or is there something actually wrong with the collection of the data.

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/
[/quote]
One guy claims NASA modified data, and, naturally, the right-wing noise machine was all over it. Not peer-reviewed. Not convincing. Tin-foil-hat stuff.

[/quote]

Yeah, I mean, in science you always need to be skeptical of any one individual data point. Science is littered with studies that were never reproducible for one reason or another.

But when ALL the data points in the same direction, it makes a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong case, even if there’s always cause to keep looking closer.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=utcsox][quote=svelte]I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be![/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/marco-rubio-campaign-weighs-getting-out/index.html

I think Rubio is on fume now. CNN released this extremely damaging report late this afternoon that his advisers are recommending him to drop out before 3/15 so he won’t get embarrassed at his home state. We will see what happen tomorrow. I think his campaign is about to collapse.[/quote]

I think Rubio’s biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren’t too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I’d be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=paramount]I have to admit I wasn’t sure where this topic was going; I was thinking about the fact that most US children by the age of 12 have seen ~14,000 simulated murders on TV.
[/quote]

Could you provide a citation for this? It seems very off. 3-4 per DAY? Maybe it’s the term “simulated murder” I’m struggling with. If a storm trooper gets killed by a Jedi in Clone Wars, is that a simulated murder?

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=svelte]Well. Since I was surprised to see Cruz win a couple of primaries this weekend, decided to find a site that predicts outcomes of upcoming primaries.

This is a pretty good site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-republican/

Its surprising to see that Rubio isn’t predicted to win Florida, his home state. That will be an interesting one to watch.[/quote]

The fact Rubio has struggled in Florida has been a pretty good indicator both of his struggles and Trump’s strength. Compare it to Ohio, where John Kasich, who has struggled in most of the country, actually has a lead in his home state.

[poorgradstudent]

Zillow is pretty automated, and the less your property is like those in the neighborhood, the worst the estimate will be.

My zip code has still been going up lately.

[poorgradstudent]

Huge scam. YUUUUUGE!

[poorgradstudent]

I’m stunned, but at this point Trump has a pretty good shot at the nomination. *If* the party elites can somehow get Cruz to back down and drop out Rubio might have a shot, but since when does Ted Cruz listen to the rest of the Republican Party? But then again, money talks, and the right cash payment might change his mind?

Republicans in California may actually get a chance to actually vote in a real, competitive primary this year.

It looks like Hillary will probably all but lock down the Democratic Nomination on Super Tuesday. Sanders will probably limp forward past that, but Clinton looks to have a decent SEC firewall, and Sanders has only performed strongly in his essentially native New Hampshire.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=paramount]A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]

Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He’s taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don’t like him. Swing voters HATE him. He’s very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn’t been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.

[poorgradstudent]

Let’s all be clear, it was Jeb! not JEB.

I figured he’d make it to Super Tuesday, but it seems like a pragmatic move for the sake of the party. He wasn’t going to win the nomination, and he was only helping Trump by staying in the race and dividing the “establishment” vote. There were rumors he and Rubio weren’t really getting along, but Jeb! in particular seems like he would HATE to see Trump get the nomination. His supporters are unlikely to flock to Cruz or Trump, and likely will boost Kasich and Rubio.

[poorgradstudent]

This is likely a direct result of the falling unemployment rate. When unemployment is at 9%, retail businesses can pick and choose 25 year olds with full availability and a few years work experience vs. high school or college kids with class schedules and the reliability issues of teenagers.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=no_such_reality]JIMHO, but McConnell signed express tickets to loserville for many republicans come this fall with his premature declaration that the President shouldn’t nominate and that they won’t take action.

If he follows through and Obama nominate any but the most activist of liberal justices too much energy will be driven into the dens and moderates which will go to the polls and spank anything with a R by their name.[/quote]

I don’t share your enthusiasm. I don’t think most moderate voters care *that* much about the Supreme Court, much less the Supreme Court nomination process.

Mark Kirk of Illinois has already laid the groundwork to break from his party if he needs to. There’s a couple vulnerable Republican Senators who could be hurt a little bit if this battle gets ugly down the road. But end of the day it could be the difference between 52 and 51 Republican Senators, which is not optimal for that Republican who loses their seat, but probably worth the cost for Mitch.

[poorgradstudent]

The Nevada Democratic caucus on February 20th will be interesting, simply because Hillary and Bernie look like they’re in a dead heat. Will they split the vote again, or can one of them build an edge?

On the same day there’s the Republican primary in South Carolina, which Trump looks like he’s going to win… but by how much? It looks nice to win on paper with 1/3 of the vote, but until he can get closer to a plurality of voters it just looks like we’re killing time until the Establishment settles between Rubio, Bush and Kasich. Cruz of course is the wild card, but enough of the party elites would probably just say “Whatever, Trump” than support Cruz as an Anti-Trump.

Then at the end of the month the Democrats get their turn in South Carolina. Right now the polls have Hillary winning there almost 2:1. That could be when she starts rolling towards Super Tuesday.

[poorgradstudent]

The President clearly has the right to nominate a replacement. It’s more ambiguous when the Senate needs to do their part, and they can always reject the nomination as the Democratic controlled Senate did to Robert Bork.

Both sides are going to try to leverage the situation politically where they can, but if the arguments get too bogged down by Constitutional law the average voter will tune out and fall asleep. Thus far the American people haven’t seemed especially angry when either party uses the filibuster to stall anything from happening.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=The-Shoveler]The Stock market and the local economy seem to be in different universes as far as I can see.

very interesting.

Usually I can tell just by looking at L.A. Traffic if we are heading into a downturn, Seems busier than ever right now.[/quote]

Unemployment is down, wages are going up. A big part of the decline in the stock market is Oil and China. In the short run neither of those is super important to the local economy.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=livinincali][quote=poorgradstudent]High rents and the rent vs. own index is part of why anytime someone around here yells “bubble” my reaction is “not so fast…”[/quote]

The problem is that interest rates are a huge factor in that calculation. Own vs rent looks much better at 3.5% rates rather than 6% rates. Of course rates will probably stay low for awhile, so home prices will probably stay elevated.[/quote]

Oh, for sure. And I’ve gotten into semantic arguments before. I think prices are high right now and it’s an awful time to buy, but I don’t think it’s a “bubble”, with the accompanying risk of popping and rapid, huge price loss.

[Author]

Posts