Antifa?

Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise" is really good reading for today's environment.

Anyway, as I said, enough people have already been turned off by anti-incumbent sentiment and Trump's incompetence to shift the next few elections into Dem-favorable territory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2017/08/28/trump-has-lost-more-than-a-fifth-of-his-support-since-inauguration/

Unfortunately, because of gerrymandering, even if Dems win 54% of the vote, they still won't have control of the house (for reference, Obama got 53%):

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16199564/democrats-2018-gerrymandering-problem

The problem isn't that Democrats aren't selling their ideas to Republicans enough. The problem is that there aren't enough people voting (people that agree with Democratic ideas like $15 min wage, universal healthcare, and environmentalism). In 2016, that might have been because of apathy over a shitty candidate, or the mistaken belief that she would easily win so there was no reason to bother waiting in line for hours to vote (and yes, it does seem odd that people in Democrat majority districts have to wait longer than people in GOP majority districts).

TL;DR: You will never get PeeTex to vote for Hillary, you'll never get Coach Z to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but you can rally and motivate the kind of people who would vote for HRC and Warren to get off their asses and vote. Racist authoritarian asshole Trump is a great motivator for Dems to get off their asses.

Keep telling yourself that for the next 3 years.

People thought that the Republicans were screwed in 2008 after they lost the White House, the Senate, and the House:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/26/uselections2008-republicans

Eight years later, they recaptured all of that, plus a bunch of State Legislators and Governorships.

It's a pendulum that swings back and forth. The majority of people think that their lives should be better, and they blame the people in charge for the fact that they aren't. When the people in charge are replaced, then the new leaders become the targets. It's some game of thrones shit.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise" is really good reading for today's environment.

I have read it.  When I entered the field of data science around 2004, he was one of the pioneering thought-leaders in analytics.  Now, I think he is more interested in feeding his ego than advancing the science.

I think we can both agree that turn-out for our elections is pretty miserable.  Strategic complacency has many democrats like yourself believing that if more people vote, then they will vote democrat.  You could be right, but it feels like a risky assumption to me.  IMO: Assumptions and complacency are part of what got Trump elected.  

Due to our miserable election turn-out (40% of eligible voters sit on their hands), the set of behavioral data that represents the nonvoting population is pretty big.  If we really sliced and diced that segment, we may be surprised at what we find.

Right now, how confident are you that Trump will lose in 2020?  Compare this in relation to your confidence level that HRC was going to win 2016.  Are they similar?  

At this point my confidence remains low that tRump would not get reelected.  If the stock market stays up, the blue crew re-elects tRump.  

nepa wrote

Right now, how confident are you that Trump will lose in 2020?  Compare this in relation to your confidence level that HRC was going to win 2016.  Are they similar?

80%. Yes, I was probably about 90% sure Clinton would win in 2016 (and, to be fair, she won by 3 million votes. Unfortunately, those votes were in the wrong places)

But that doesn't mean Trump will definitely win again. I'm of the opinion that he would've lost to almost any Democrat not named "Clinton". Bernie would've won, but O'Malley would've won, too.

As a Data Scientist (or even a poker player), you know that you bet with the odds enough, you eventually win out. If I have a doctored coin that flips 80% of the time heads and 20% of the time tails, I'd gladly take heads every time against you. Yeah, I'd lose a few times, but over the long run, it would be a pretty good bet.

Anyway, the way to prevent Trump from winning is to fight Trump, not some fictitious "threat" like Antifa. I read a nice series of tweets that seems relevant to this thread:

ScottyJack wrote

At this point my confidence remains low that tRump would not get reelected.  If the stock market stays up, the blue crew re-elects tRump.

I'm with you scotty.  Unprecedented outrage will trigger unprecedented lunacy that could in some way, put trump in a position of realistic re-electability.  There's too many variables in between now and 2020 to be confident in anything.  Expect the unexpected, and I hate to say it, but when it comes to trump, I can only expect the worst.

He's not going to win reelection with these approval ratings:



And that's with a good economy. If you think that the economy might start to tank, like this guy does:

nepa wrote

I'm not exactly sure why...I feel like we're at the top...I can feel it in my bones...  unless, of course trump sends us to War, we're headed for a big correction (at least 10%... maybe 20).  Get out of the Casino now.

then he might be in for even worse ratings. Hard to win against those numbers.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

But that doesn't mean Trump will definitely win again. I'm of the opinion that he would've lost to almost any Democrat not named "Clinton". Bernie would've won, but O'Malley would've won, too.

Interesting...  then this supports the argument that the root cause of the loss to trump was incorrect candidate selection.  I thought we debated several months ago on the candidate selection topic.  If I'm not mistaken, at the time you attributed the loss more to Russian meddling than poor candidate selection.  Am I totally mistaken, or has your position changed?  Just curious.   I could've sworn you have not been that definitive in saying HRC was the wrong candidate.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

As a Data Scientist (or even a poker player), you know that you bet with the odds enough, you eventually win out. If I have a doctored coin that flips 80% of the time heads and 20% of the time tails, I'd gladly take heads every time against you. Yeah, I'd lose a few times, but over the long run, it would be a pretty good bet.

You're absolutely correct from a linear perspective.  This puts you at a disadvantage when the opposition is thinking 3 dimensionally.  Picture your data structured as a cube or even a lake.  Imagine having the capability of multi-dimensional analysis.  Think about having the capability of storing and accessing the results of every coin that was ever tossed.  If you have enough data, and ask the correct series of questions, you could potentially predict when the coin would result in heads with a fairly high degree of accuracy.  This is what analytics is all about.  

Going with a linear approach you're guessing.  Going multi-dimensional adds a greater level of intelligence to your guess work.... almost to a point where you can make predictions.

I would bet trump's got an "analytics guy."  I picture him to look like the Newman character from Seinfeld.  

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Anyway, the way to prevent Trump from winning is to fight Trump, not some fictitious "threat" like Antifa. I read a nice series of tweets that seems relevant to this thread:

I see both sides as a destabilizing force.  Antifa, Alt-right, what ever... in conjunction they're going to create an opportunity for trump to do something stupid...perhaps even find a way to use his stupidity to his advantage.  

I'd rather all groups voluntarily keep their god dam mouths shut. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

Let's say hypothetically, an opposition protest infiltrated by Antifa results in unprecedented violence and unrest (Picture LA in 92 x 10).  Let's say the trump administration uses this unprecedented civil unrest as a reason to declare some type of Martial Law via some obscure statute buried in the annals of Jeff Sessions anus.  Does a scenario like this make Antifa a threat?  From my perspective it does.

99.9% of folks wouldn't have even heard of the Alt-right function in Cville if it didn't get violent.  There is such a little population of actual Nazis and/or alt-right extremest. Yet reading on social media, you would think we would actually need to fear Nazis at this point in time.  The left from my generation ( I am 28) forgot that disagreeing with other people's opinions does not warrant violence.  Sure counter protest.  But getting violent always helps their message out.  
Another major problem is that the left also likes to label anybody who disagrees with them "nazis".  And they also want to dismiss anybody who supports trump. Even though we all know there are good people who support trump.  Scary time for free speech.  

(btw I am libertarian minded and did not vote for either major party candidate)

Meanwhile, our country has been at war pretty much the whole time I have been alive.  This should be what young people are rallying against imo

MC2 5678F589 wrote

And that's with a good economy. If you think that the economy might start to tank, like this guy does:

nepa wrote

I'm not exactly sure why...I feel like we're at the top...I can feel it in my bones...  unless, of course trump sends us to War, we're headed for a big correction (at least 10%... maybe 20).  Get out of the Casino now.

then he might be in for even worse ratings. Hard to win against those numbers.

With the most recent financial crisis, how long did it take for the markets to bottom out?  Do you remember the day that the descent started?  Of course not.  That's not what I was saying, and that's obviously not how it works.  Typical down trends take 3 to 5 years to play out.  Taking into account societal changes over the past 30 to 40 years (in particular growth income inequality), we are seeing a cumulative effect, that will make subsequent downturns more devastating to the overall health of society.

We've healed a bit since the last down turn, but my confidence level in our financial system's overall stability and security is still in the toilet.  Just like voting behavior, in a healthy, regulated system, there is fair amount of predictability.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, we have not reformed enough to be considered neither healthy, nor effectively regulated.  I'm not saying we are the brink of financial Armageddon, but were ready for a plunge.  Are you aware of the glut in commercial real-estate?   Call it a potential domino.

With trump at the helm who knows what the results of a down-turn will be... who knows how long it will take to recover.  The man is a lunatic... it wouldn't surprise me if he found a way to benefit from the people's collective financial suffering... while he was in office.

Protect your assets.  Buy and Hold is a risky strategy.  Effective investors run from the top.  Get out while you still can!

Im out and Jeff Sessions anus is an awful thought to end my day!  

louie.mirags wrote

Yet reading on social media, you would think we would actually need to fear Nazis at this point in time.

Good point.  I totally agree.  Of course, as you said, you have to be careful as you may be labeled a Nazi sympathizer simply because you don't view them as a threat.  Obviously, you find them deplorable in every way, but believe in their freedom of expression... In the same way that baby killers can choose to kill their babies, haters are free to publicly hate... as long as they do not directly harm others with their expression.  It's vile and repulsive, so it should be ignored, but with sensationalism fueling advertising revenues across the media-verse, it's nearly impossible to ignore... it's an outrage.

IMO: We are seeing unprecedented outrage directly fueled by media sensationalism.  It used to come from only one angle.  I grew up on the outer edge of a time when the family only had 1 TV.  There was no such thing as internet as we know it today.  Radio and print were the only other forms of mass media.  It was a much less sensationalized time.  I have killed my TV, but I am obviously still quite addicted to the internet.  We're all hooked on media of some type, being made to suffer from the constant sensationalism of negative events.

Report on more good things, and more good things will follow.

nepa wrote

louie.mirags wrote

Yet reading on social media, you would think we would actually need to fear Nazis at this point in time.

Good point.  I totally agree.  Of course, as you said, you have to be careful as you may be labeled a Nazi sympathizer simply because you don't view them as a threat.

Wait a minute. You started this thread because you think Antifa is a threat, but Nazis get a pass?!?!

Wtf? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is anyone else seeing this?!?

nepa wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

But that doesn't mean Trump will definitely win again. I'm of the opinion that he would've lost to almost any Democrat not named "Clinton". Bernie would've won, but O'Malley would've won, too.

Interesting...  then this supports the argument that the root cause of the loss to trump was incorrect candidate selection.  I thought we debated several months ago on the candidate selection topic.  If I'm not mistaken, at the time you attributed the loss more to Russian meddling than poor candidate selection.  Am I totally mistaken, or has your position changed?  Just curious.   I could've sworn you have not been that definitive in saying HRC was the wrong candidate.

Lots of factors. In an election decided by less than 70,000 votes, any one thing (Comey, Russia, Media, Clinton's name, Clinton's gender, Clinton's bureaucratic tendencies, etc.) Could've shifted the election. I have been consistent in saying she was a shit candidate. Here's a quote from 2015:

Most informed guy on this forum wrote

Yes like Bernie over Hillary. Yes, I think Hillary is the candidate of the corporate owned status quo. But Hillary is a million times better than Trump or Cruz, who are the Republicn front runners at the moment. At least she doesn't want a huge tax break for the richest people and corporations in the world that would have to be paid for by cutting off vital services to people who need them.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

As a Data Scientist (or even a poker player), you know that you bet with the odds enough, you eventually win out. If I have a doctored coin that flips 80% of the time heads and 20% of the time tails, I'd gladly take heads every time against you. Yeah, I'd lose a few times, but over the long run, it would be a pretty good bet.

You're absolutely correct from a linear perspective.  This puts you at a disadvantage when the opposition is thinking 3 dimensionally.  Picture your data structured as a cube or even a lake.  Imagine having the capability of multi-dimensional analysis.  Think about having the capability of storing and accessing the results of every coin that was ever tossed.  If you have enough data, and ask the correct series of questions, you could potentially predict when the coin would result in heads with a fairly high degree of accuracy.  This is what analytics is all about.  

Going with a linear approach you're guessing.  Going multi-dimensional adds a greater level of intelligence to your guess work.... almost to a point where you can make predictions.

You'd enjoy this NYT article, partially about how Republican data analysts use software for their gerrymandering:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/magazine/the-new-front-in-the-gerrymandering-wars-democracy-vs-math.html

MC2 5678F589 wrote

nepa wrote

louie.mirags wrote

Yet reading on social media, you would think we would actually need to fear Nazis at this point in time.

Good point.  I totally agree.  Of course, as you said, you have to be careful as you may be labeled a Nazi sympathizer simply because you don't view them as a threat.

Wait a minute. You started this thread because you think Antifa is a threat, but Nazis get a pass?!?!

Wtf? Am I taking crazy pills here? Is anyone else seeing this?!?

Both are threats to near term stability.  Neither are threats to our way of life.  The distinction is important.  Maybe I wasn't clear on that.  Do you actually believe that Nazi's are going to destroy the collective core values that our society is built upon?  If you do, then yes, you're obviously taking crazy pills.  

Am I over estimating the potential for trump inspired lunacy that could ensue as a result of mass unrest?  Perhaps, but you, as our #1 trump hater should see some potential for problems created by unrest inspired by direct engagement protest.

I see more of a threat from the consequences associated with near term destabilization than a Nazi grand conspiracy.  Haters will always hate.  They can hate publicly because that's part of everyone's right as freedom loving Americans.  It sounds completed fucked up, but so is killing a baby.   Consider the consequences of forcing them to hate privately?

Nepa on Antifa:

nepa wrote

.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

Is Antifa something important that we must be concerned about right now?  

In my opinion, yes.  This is extremism and it is a significant problem.

And

nepa wrote

Antifa has the power to destabilize us further, giving trump an excuse to be an even bigger doosh bag.  Antifa is one of many parts to this problem

And

nepa wrote

Let's say hypothetically, an opposition protest infiltrated by Antifa results in unprecedented violence and unrest (Picture LA in 92 x 10).  Let's say the trump administration uses this unprecedented civil unrest as a reason to declare some type of Martial Law via some obscure statute buried in the annals of Jeff Sessions anus.  Does a scenario like this make Antifa a threat?  From my perspective it does.

Nepa on Nazis:

nepa wrote

 believe in their freedom of expression... In the same way that baby killers can choose to kill their babies, haters are free to publicly hate... as long as they do not directly harm others with their expression..

And

nepa wrote

I'm not too paranoid about what trump or a bunch of white supremacist doosh bags can do

You're not too worried about White Supremecists, who have killed scores of people over the last 20 years, with the FBI reporting that they have elements in police agencies across the country, but Antifa is a "threat"? You're not "paranoid" about a bunch of white Supremecists, but you conjure an elaborate fantasy about something that might conceivably happen if Antifa commits the LA riots times 10!?!

Seriously, nepa. This is kind of weird. It seems like you have an agenda here. Why are you pushing this? And why are you joining in, Louie?

nepa wrote

.  
Am I over estimating the potential for trump inspired lunacy that could ensue as a result of mass unrest?  Perhaps, but you, as our #1 trump hater should see some potential for problems created by unrest inspired by direct engagement protest.

If there is government overreach in responding to Anti-Fascist protests, it will cause more protests, yes. Some people think that might be good, to wake people up to the police state/corporatocray that we currently live in.

People like this think that chaos will come eventually:

nepa wrote

Hilary is the most qualified candidate to maintain
the current situation... for me, this means maintenance of the inequality
apparatus, and the overwhelming influence money has on our political system.

I don't want any of the things you propose under a Trump administration... I
also don't want social and economic collapse 10 years from now (when the
bubble after this current bursts creating the true financial Armageddon)

Chaos now or chaos later... obviously more people are opting for chaos
later.

The people ended up voting for chaos now. You're seeing the result. I'm glad there are Anti-Fascist forces to act as a check on the Nazis and White Supremecists in and out of the Administration.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

You're not too worried about White Supremecists, who have killed scores of people over the last 20 years, with the FBI reporting that they have elements in police agencies across the country, but Antifa is a "threat"? You're not "paranoid" about a bunch of white Supremecists, but you conjure an elaborate fantasy about something that might conceivably happen if Antifa commits the LA riots times 10!?!

Seriously, nepa. This is kind of weird. It seems like you have an agenda here. Why are you pushing this? And why are you joining in, Louie?

To be honest, you sound as paranoid, if not more than me.  I don't know the percentage of the population dialed into a hateful lifestyle, but my gut tells me it's very small... hopefully similar in number to the total percentage of pedophiles residing in Florida.  I'm sure we can agree that 1 of either is too many, but try as we might, we're never going to get rid of either.

    Help me understand what you're suggesting... Are racist police and political personalities a new phenomenon?  It appears you may have your head in your ass, and have not realized that this racism thing has been, and will always be a persistent problem.  What are you suggesting we do to stop the unbridled advance of white supremacy?  Should we should declare an unwinnable national "War on hate?" and maintain a collective fantasy that everyone loves everyone.  Should we collectively force haters into the closet?  Perhaps we should treat the hate community like society treated the gay community in the not so distant past?  While it may seem like a logical solution to some, it creates a bit of a constitutional conundrum for me.