The Donnie and Megy Show

[M. Rick]

Megyn: You insulted women
Donald: You're fired
Megyn: You can't fire me
Donald: Eminent domain
Megyn: Come again?
Donald: I'll get the government to bulldoze your house
Megyn: I own one of your condos
Donald: I'll tear the building down and rebuild it with Chinese money and Mexican labor
Megyn: Oh
Donald: And a thirty year tax abatement
Megyn: Wow
Donald: And a penthouse with a view of the park
Megyn: I think I'm falling in love with you
Donald: You're hired

[luisb...@aol.com]

This sounds like one of those New Yorker imagined conversations.

The much funner thing, to me anyway, is how the drive-bys continue to peddle this idea that Trump will win the Iowa caucuses and NH. Also the way they publish story after story about this feud. I've always understood political "news" to a be rung or two above gossip, but this is the third major time that gossip and polling have become completely blurred.

A lot of people like to pinpoint the year that rock died. I'm more interested in pinpointing the year critical thinking died. For a nation that loves to promote its belief in individualism, there sure is a lot of conformity.

[M. Rick]

> A lot of people like to pinpoint the year that rock died. I'm more interested in pinpointing the year critical thinking died.

Let's test our critical thought. I'll offer 2-1 odds ($20 to $10) that Trump will win the New Hampshire Republican primary (Feb 9, 2016). If any candidate but Trump wins NH, I pay you $20. It doesn't matter if the winner is Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Paul etc. - as long as Trump finishes second place or lower, I pay you $20. However if Trump comes in first in the NH primary, you pay me $10. The offer is good anytime before the Iowa caucus, Feb 1, 2016. We can bet right here and settle up after the NH primary - PayPal, electronic bank transfer, any method you wish. Sound good?

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 9:04:06 AM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> > A lot of people like to pinpoint the year that rock died. I'm more interested in pinpointing the year critical thinking died.
>
> Let's test our critical thought. I'll offer 2-1 odds ($20 to $10) that Trump will win the New Hampshire Republican primary (Feb 9, 2016). If any candidate but Trump wins NH, I pay you $20. It doesn't matter if the winner is Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Paul etc. - as long as Trump finishes second place or lower, I pay you $20. However if Trump comes in first in the NH primary, you pay me $10. The offer is good anytime before the Iowa caucus, Feb 1, 2016. We can bet right here and settle up after the NH primary - PayPal, electronic bank transfer, any method you wish. Sound good?

Sanders or Kasich will win NH. Take it to the bank. Only a non-critical thinker would believe otherwise. Did you ever hear a band called Sex Pistols? They have this line, "You do not relate with the real/Or you would lose your cheap appeal."

[gj]

So is this a handshake I'm seeing? A deal accepted? Kasich vs Trump?

-GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

Kasich or Rafael. You believe otherwise?

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 9:04:06 AM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> > A lot of people like to pinpoint the year that rock died. I'm more interested in pinpointing the year critical thinking died.
>
> Let's test our critical thought. I'll offer 2-1 odds ($20 to $10) that Trump will win the New Hampshire Republican primary (Feb 9, 2016). If any candidate but Trump wins NH, I pay you $20. It doesn't matter if the winner is Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Christie, Paul etc. - as long as Trump finishes second place or lower, I pay you $20. However if Trump comes in first in the NH primary, you pay me $10. The offer is good anytime before the Iowa caucus, Feb 1, 2016. We can bet right here and settle up after the NH primary - PayPal, electronic bank transfer, any method you wish. Sound good?

What critical reason do you have for believing Trump will win NH?

[Just Kidding]

Trump currently has around a 20 pt lead in the NH polls. Is that
critical enough for you?

[gj]

I just don't know, I have a hard time seeing Trump losing, but I hope
he does. He needs to lose some steam.

-GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

The funniest part of this affair is that the liberal media (we all know the orgs) are being forced to publish and air regular stories (report is too strong a word) about their arch nemesis, Fox News Channel. Worse than that, they find themselves taking positions in favor of an FNC on air personality, Kelly. Ouch. A cynic would say, "Of course! Those pathetic, money-losing organizations are riding the shirt tails of FNC to profitability." The funniest part is that FNC is a blip in the media landscape numbers wise. Yet these establishment orgs end up in their wake vortex. Heavy shout out to Roger.

[luisb...@aol.com]

You're basing it on gossip. You have no idea how these polls are conducted. That's my point all along. You are leading the charge against critical thinking while pretending to practice it. Find a sucker somewhere else.

[Just Kidding]

You'll do just fine.

[gj]

Are you suggesting there's a conspiracy afoot ;-)

-GJ 2.0

[M. Rick]

> What critical reason do you have for believing Trump will win NH?

Several factors: the polls on realclearpolitics, the current betting odds, the faults of Trump's competition, large crowds at Trump rallies, my own impression of the debates (most of which I watched or heard), talking to people, media interviews with likely voters, interviews with politicians. Unlike the cheerleaders here, I'm willing to back up my predictions with something more than air. What's the basis for your prediction?

[Just Walkin']

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 2:55:24 PM UTC-6, M. Rick wrote:
> > What critical reason do you have for believing Trump will win NH?
>
> Several factors: the polls on realclearpolitics, the current betting odds, the faults of Trump's competition, large crowds at Trump rallies, my own impression of the debates (most of which I watched or heard), talking to people, media interviews with likely voters, interviews with politicians. Unlike the cheerleaders here, I'm willing to back up my predictions with something more than air. What's the basis for your prediction?

Wishful thinking.

Or a paid agenda.

Your pick.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 3:55:24 PM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> > What critical reason do you have for believing Trump will win NH?
>
> Several factors: the polls on realclearpolitics, the current betting odds, the faults of Trump's competition, large crowds at Trump rallies, my own impression of the debates (most of which I watched or heard), talking to people, media interviews with likely voters, interviews with politicians. Unlike the cheerleaders here, I'm willing to back up my predictions with something more than air. What's the basis for your prediction?

You don't call polls air? They've been consistently wrong in two major national election events of this century. There's a respected probability guy who Democrats adore. His name is Nate Silver. He has written at least one angry article about the failure of the polls in the 2012 and 2014 Congressional elections. He just confirmed what anyone could see with their own two eyes about the hollow gossip mongering known as polls.

So, media interviews with caucus goers in Iowa and voters in NH actually do not back up your views. Either you're fabricating or fantasizing. And just today the Weekly Standard found Iowa voters continuing to move away from Mr. Trump. That jibes with NPR reports about NH.

Check out this excellent Phil Ochs song, which conservatives should make their anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

[luisb...@aol.com]

You mean a conspiracy like "The Plan?" Or the CIA flying crack into the ghettos? Or the CIA-killed-JFK conspiracy? No, I don't think there's a gossip conspiracy. An anti-critical thinking conspiracy? If only. Sadly it's entirely voluntary.
>
> -GJ 2.0

[M. Rick]

>Either you're fabricating or fantasizing.

In that case you should be happy to wager -- my fantasy vs. your critical thinking. However, "critical thinking" is not accepted as payment if the fantasy turns into reality.

[Just Walkin']

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 4:44:42 PM UTC-6, M. Rick wrote:
> >Either you're fabricating or fantasizing.
>
> In that case you should be happy to wager -- my fantasy vs. your critical thinking. However, "critical thinking" is not accepted as payment if the fantasy turns into reality.

Never ask David Horowitz to wager on his own agenda. This kind of talk is all push, not pull-through.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:057d1ea9-1889-4d8f...@googlegroups.com...

> Sanders or Kasich will win NH. Take it to the bank. Only a non-critical
> thinker would believe otherwise. Did you ever hear a band called Sex
> Pistols? They have this line, "You do not relate with the real/Or you
> would lose your cheap appeal."

Sanders for sure. Kasich? When donkeys fly over the frozen lakes of hell.
Trump's gonna win in NH, only not by anywhere near as large a margin as
current polls indicate. I have people in NH. I know this. :-)

I wish Kasich would win in NH. I might even be tempted to vote for him (if
only for a moment) in the general election should he capture the nomination.
It ain't gonna happen. Polls are inaccurate, but they're not that
inaccurate. Trump has a roughly 15-20% lead in the NH poll over Kasich,
Cruz, Rubio, Bush.

<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html>

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 5:44:42 PM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> >Either you're fabricating or fantasizing.
>
> In that case you should be happy to wager -- my fantasy vs. your critical thinking. However, "critical thinking" is not accepted as payment if the fantasy turns into reality.

QED--critical thinking is no longer the coin of the realm.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Polls don't elect people. Voters do.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2378aeb6-0065-4395...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, and given their limitations, polls are remarkably accurate indicators
of how people will vote. Not perfect, mind you, and given non-statistical
sources of error, not as accurately as they claim to. Still, one would be
hard pressed to find an instance in which a major polling organization was
off by an amount as large as 15%.

Trump will win NH. Book it.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Shalom and Wazzup--I choose not to participate in the withering away of democracy by being poll led, poll fed. What's more frightful--there seem to be 10 more orgs with each new campaign. And the people don't even vote! Try getting your head around that. Enjoy the bread, enjoy the circus. I know that polls have been flat wrong in two of the last major national elections, but I don't recall percentages. Fifteen sounds right in some places. My preference is to say who I like, as this graphic shows:

http://49.media.tumblr.com/00d5edda76e9b76a61789f9773fda973/tumblr_nzfmhdJgYD1rbf5cro1_500.gif

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:af016073-f556-4ff1...@googlegroups.com...

"Poll led, poll fed"? No. I may be voting for O'Malley. I'm not exactly
being led by the polls.

Opinions are fine. Everybody's got at least one. Some folks disguise them
as facts.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Given how the email situation is shaping up for Hillary, he and Sanders might be the only choices you have.

>
> Opinions are fine. Everybody's got at least one. Some folks disguise them
> as facts.

Some "folks" disguise polls as facts. Actually, many "folks" do.

[Just Kidding]

Polls are like any other tool -- they're useless unless you know how
to use them.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:766a5155-64f0-4463...@googlegroups.com...

They're not facts, but they're as close as we have before actual voting. It
helps to understand the mathematics of the statistics behind them, and also
the degree to which they understate the influences of non-random factors.

[M. Rick]

> QED--critical thinking is no longer the coin of the realm.

Sorry to say, but critical thinking about money is valued enormously in this realm. When handicapping a political race, "critical thinking" is reflected in the odds and the individual's wagers. The odds rely heavily on the polls. So if you dismiss the value of the polls, and the voters prove you right, you can make a lot of money with your critical thinking. So what accounts for the reluctance to wager? The crushing shame of losing $10?

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:58:36 PM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> > QED--critical thinking is no longer the coin of the realm.
>
> Sorry to say, but critical thinking about money is valued enormously in this realm. When handicapping a political race, "critical thinking" is reflected in the odds and the individual's wagers. The odds rely heavily on the polls. So if you dismiss the value of the polls, and the voters prove you right, you can make a lot of money with your critical thinking. So what accounts for the reluctance to wager? The crushing shame of losing $10?

This might prove a useful tool for he who tries to monetize critical thinking as applied to polls. Slide the slider merrily along the chart and see where things stood 9 months ago. See the former top dogs become underdogs, etc. Then get back to us about the reliability of the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/compare/republican_presidential_nomination_2016_2012_2008.html

[M. Rick]

>See the former top dogs become underdogs, etc.

Exactly. That's why my 2-1 wager expires on Feb 1 (before the Iowa caucus). If you're discounting Trump's standing in the polls, why are you so reluctant to wager?

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 4:04:15 AM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
>
> Megyn:

This thread isn't for me, and there's no real Bob Dylan content.

:D

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a45daa51-179d-4f3e...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, nine months ago, things were much different than they are now. Note
the time scale over which the variations are significant. Also note that
the Iowa caususes are in three days and the NH primary in ten days.

Oh, but sez he, the NY Times endorsed Kasich! I'm sure the folks in New
Hampshire are thrilled! How I wish that mattered. It doesn't. Kasich's
only hope is that all of Trump's supporters get the primary date wrong or
don't know where to go to vote. Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Just saw that on the BBC. Awesome. Why does he move his arms like Herbert Marshall?

[M. Rick]

Every time I go to realclearpolitics I see Bernie's ad. What's he selling?

[M. Rick]

I heard a 22 year old Iowa man say he's voting for Trump because 1) The Apprentice was his favorite TV show and 2) we need a successful businessman in the White House. And so I thought of Desi Arnaz, though he'd have more of a "Cuban problem" than Cruz and Rubio. President Lucy?