Slashdot Mirror

Sure. Great site you linked, there.

Here's one of their other articles:

Hip-Hop Is Turning On Donald Trump.

And another:

Gun Deaths In America.

Your sing-along with Hillary's media is a little pathetic. If you're in the bag with the Wall-Street candidate (Hillary Clinton) why not just say it out loud?

Sure. Great site you linked, there.

Here's one of their other articles:

Hip-Hop Is Turning On Donald Trump.

And another:

Gun Deaths In America.

Your sing-along with Hillary's media is a little pathetic. If you're in the bag with the Wall-Street candidate (Hillary Clinton) why not just say it out loud?

And no one seems to have noticed that Trump has completely owned the media for the weekend up to this point!

Yes, Trump is crushing that pussy, all right.

http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

Citation? start here [lmgtfy.com].

Sorry, that's not evidence of abuse.

You didn't look very hard.

Chicago deliberately reduced the length of their yellow lights to generate more revenue. [fivethirtyeight.com]

What they (and you) fail to notice is that the national average for college degrees is 30%, so on average Trump supporters are more educated than the national average. (And here's a reference to the analysis [qz.com] as backing for that statement.) [...] What’s more, Silver found that 44% of Trump voters have college undergraduate degrees, compared to 29% of US adults.

From the original publication on fivethirtyeight, the education level of Trump voters was derived from the exit polls for the Republican Primary. In order to compare it to the general population, you have to assume that the participants to the Primary are representative of the general population.

Based on the results for the other participants (from the same article):

50 percent for Cruz supporters or 64 percent for Kasich supporters [have college degrees]

I would question this assumption.

Nate Silver and his crew are smarter. Right...they called the primary season so well.

Just look at all the crow he ate...

So yeah, smarter people. Right.

Smarter people than you still disagree.

This recent article has related info, and what the protocol is in the event of a signal discovery.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Actually giving men 5 sets makes it easier for the favorites, and limits the number of upsets that can happen.

Also the reason that they reduced the Grand Slam tournaments from 5 to 3 is because women's matches last much longer than men's. So if we're talking on a time basis, women should be paid more even though they play less sets.

Further, climatologists have analyzed Pielke's methodology, and found it wanting:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think

This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.

That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.

OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.

The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.

He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.

Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.

Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.

So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.

(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)

And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)

So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.

(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)

British dental health is much better than in the US.

British Teeth Aren’t That Bad (American Teeth Are Far Worse)

Which countries' children have the worst teeth?

who could be elected president. His fan base are white racists - they have no other options.

It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance. No, much more of his support comes from people who deeply oppose globalization and people who are just mad at the establishment and want anything else.

I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.

A simpler theory is simply that "leaned Republicans" (in Pew Polling terminology, self identifying Republicans plus Republican leaning "independents") will vote as they always have, pulling the lever for the "R" regardless of how qualified or unqualified that person might be. 85% of all "leaned Republicans" plan on voting for Trump. Evangelical Republicans support Trump at a rate of 94%, they constituted nearly half of all the votes Romney got.

There seems to be an effort by the media to paint the DNC as being "a success" and the RNC as "a disaster" - despite all reports indicating that they were the exact opposite: the RNC was (with the exception of Cruz) a party coming together to support their candidate

Yeah, that was great how Bush, McCain, and Romney all came out to support.... oh wait, they all stayed away because a significant part of the Republican establishment refuses to endorse Trump.

In fact if they were to endorse anyone during the campaign it would likely be Hillary. I mean the Cruz-endorsing "Obamacare is unconstitutional" folks at Volokh Conspiracy have already done so.

while the DNC was two warring factions failing to come to any sort of agreement

The only reason the RNC was so quiet is their insurgent with outsider delegates won. Can you imagine how chaotic it would be if Trump had lost?

- primarily because it's come out that the "losing" side only lost because of massive fraud and cheating on the "winning" side.

It has? I must have missed that story. All I heard about was some emails indicating that the DNC was pushing a pro-Clinton narrative to reporters, a fraction of what the RNC tried to do to Trump.

If you read any reports outside the MSM, the DNC has been a complete disaster.

Right before they tell you that Bigfoot shot JFK.

off-script outbursts from invited celebrities,

Someone didn't repeat the teleprompter word for word in a speech before a live audience??? WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!!

Hillary has managed to turn 538's "80% chance" of victory into a 52% chance - WITH the "post-nomination bounce!"

I read 538 as well, though apparently with better reading comprehension.

Look, I realize that you hate Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns, but it turns out that many people like her.

Not as many as you think (in fact, not even a simple majority). A majority of people either "dislike" or "strongly" dislike both Trump and Clinton, they are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. Additionally, most of the people who responded saying that they were going to vote for each of them said that their reason for voting was as a vote against the other candidate. So not even a majority of their own voters are voting because they like them, they are voting because of how much they hate/fear the other candidate.

This is not what representative democracy should look like. Any partisan idiot claiming that anyone else MUST!!! vote a certain way in order to stop the other person, and thereby continuing the status quo, is part of the problem. We need 3 or 4 viable parties and candidates in any major election. The way to get there is not to continue down the same broken path playing the same smoke-and-mirrors game. The media isn't going to pay attention to anything that they aren't paid to pay attention to, but if smaller parties get electoral votes in this election cycle then hopefully things will start to change for the next one.

Story should always be the primary focus, but lets not forget that CGI can help if done right.

Not to switch away from the big screen to the small screen, but take a look at either Game of Thrones or The Expanse.

Both definitely have their share of CGI scenes, and when they DO go CGI, they go heavy, but in both cases, even if the CGI scenes are sometimes meant to "ooo" and "ahhhh" the audience, they are also in service of the story ... not the other way around.

The simple fact is that way too often a director gets his mind around an action/fight/chase/whatever that will wow the audience, and tries to deliver a bunch of these instead of a good story. Summer blockbusters have usually been especially egregious of forgetting this.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-11-defining-features-of-the-summer-blockbuster/

Be grateful so many people aren't pissed-off at the Republican candidate, this time.

I don't know what parallel Universe you are posting from but in my world, both Trump and Clinton have historic high unfavorability ratings. It's time for you to step out of the echo chamber and experience the real world.

I read my first article on UBI on fivethirtyeight. http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

As a fiscal conservative, I looked at it with high suspicion. But, the basic idea presented seems plausible enough to suggest serious study, if for no more reason than that jobs will disappear as robotics take over. I'd like to suggest that those of you who doubt or dislike the idea, set those feelings aside for a moment, and read the article. Then, come back and give a good reason why it shouldn't at least be experimented with on a small scale somewhere. Honestly, my own kneejerk reaction to the idea is...WTF, pay people for doing nothing???, are you fucking crazy??? Well, unless you have a better solution going forward, you might want to reconsider.

The rational betting puts the advantage on Hillary, now that's she's beyond immediate indictment. You can check out this website, which tracks how the US election system actually works (Its not popular vote that determines the winner). Normally, that wouldn't even be a significant problem to a competent candidate, but with miniscule fundraising and self-funding, there's no "ground game" of political operatives working battleground states. It doesn't look good for Trump right now.

And all the partisans are overlooking the big picture. Its not that Hillary should crush Trump in the national election (the way that Nixon crushed McGovern). Its that Trump is so crushable, and yet Hillary is such a poor politician, she still doesn't appear to be running away with the election race yet.

This seems to have a complete list of polls, but the highest number for Johnson there is 12%.

While you are completely correct, it is also worth mentioning that more recently they failed to predict Trump's victory. Here is his apology after that happened. So he's demonstrably been unable to understand the Trump trend in the past.

My point isn't that he's bad, he's really good. It's that you shouldn't blindly follow what he says: do your own analysis.

The most accurate polling analysis in the two most recent presidential cycles has been done by http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... They carefully look at all polls on a state by state basis and then build a national electoral model based on that data. It's updated every few days as new polls come out. Right now, Hillary is winning the electoral college by 338 to 199 with 1 vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Of course things can change, but that's a pretty big lead for this point in the race.

And note that Bernie did not walk away empty handed. He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.

It's 66% of the population age 16 and above, with some minor exceptions.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics glossary:

Labor force participation rate
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.

Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia who do not live in institutions (for example, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, and nursing homes) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.

It includes everyone who has retired and who lives on their own, and yes, the baby boomers have had a large effect on it. Ben Casselman at FiveThirtyEight discussed this a couple of years ago, noting that the LFPR began declining in the early 2000s. Short version: about half, maybe a little less, of the decline can be attributed to Baby Boomer retirement. Other factors, including more people in school and some people not returning to the workforce, account for the rest.

Well, here's probably the best guess based upon current polling...
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

I don't know what your preferences are politically, but you can definitely vote your conscience. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/>Gary Johnson has 10% of the overall electorate vote today.

There are other third party candidates there, some are horrendous Marxists basically, like Stein, whatever. You can vote what you really think rather than taking a part in this false choice.

Shit, write in Darth Vader if that's your real preference.

For comparison, the total GDP of the country is a little under $17 trillion.

Labor force participation is low, the levels it was in the 1970s. There's a recent uptick in jobs, but the graph is notoriously noisy, and it'll be at least 6 months to a year before we can tell whether this is a trend.

GDP per capita (amount of GDP per person) has about doubled since 1995. Quadrupled since 1970.

Despite these gains, household income has dropped by about 8% in the last 10 years.

So in summary, since 1995 (ish) we doubled our GDP (both per person and in absolute terms), and household income right now is about the level it was at the start of the doubling.

Oh, and everyone who works still has to put in 40hrs/week.

fivethirtyeight did an interesting article on this a while back. http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

As a fiscal conservative, my knee jerk reaction to the idea was that people would just be lazy, wanting something for nothing. But the article is thought provoking, and I'd love to see some country or state be the virtual laboratory for some serious experimentation.

Why progressives/liberals dismiss so easily the real concerns of most voters?

I think you've got a lot of emotion here masquerading as numbers. Here are some actual statistical facts:

"Most voters" are in fact not white males. In 2016 white males will be about 34% of all eligible voters. That means 66% of the electorate has to deal with being from an unprivileged group every day of their lives. (actually more, as I'm not counting GBT white males). So if liberals (and in fact conservatives) were not looking at issues of "privilege", they would in fact be ignoring the real concerns of most voters.

Trump voters are, on average a lot wealthier than either Sanders or Clinton voters. He is not getting elected on the votes of the disgruntled "working class" in general. That's a myth.

Exit poling has shown the best correlation voting for Trump has with any position is with belief that Obama is not an American. I'm not even sure this should be news. He's been the standard-bearer for birtherisim for 8 years now. His supporters have also been shown to be far more racially and religiously intolerant than the average Republican voter.

I know it's ugly to think that a major party nominated a candidate based on what essentially amounts to White Supremacy. But we don't do ourselves any favors at this point by ignoring the plain truth.

Lets cut through all this BS and finally admit that intelligence is genetic and heritable.

Actually, this doesn't prove that at all. This study correlates education to genetics, not intelligence. Having worked with plenty of idiot PhDs and a few brilliant people out of trade schools, I can tell you the two aren't necessarily the same thing.

Obtaining certain levels of education require specific skills (e.g. manipulating p-values, and writing reports). Those skills are only one kind of intelligence.

Furthermore, obtaining education requires means and desire.

You may be right, and intelligence is genetic. However, this data doesn't prove that.

... that with all Trump is known for, and who is supporting him, that he has a large following in the low-income parts of the people?

That's been debunked as a myth, you know...

For example, you claim that SCOTUS did a number of unanimous rulings against O. Other than his appointing a person during what should have been a congressional recession (but GOP was pulling a stupid action), what other unanimous SCOTUS rulings were there?

Well, here's an answer to that.

While we're still in the part of the Court's term before the decisions start flying fast and furiously, I thought I'd present the latest update on where we stand with respect to those unanimous losses, where President Obama doesn't even get the votes of the two justices he appointed. Here are the stats:

• In the first 6.5 years of Obama's presidency (January 2009 to June 2015), the government lost unanimously at the Supreme Court 23 times, an average of 3.62 cases per year.
• In all 8 years of George W. Bush's presidency, the government lost unanimously 15 times (1.875 cases per year).
• In all 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the government lost 23 times (2.875 cases per year).
• In other words, Obama has lost unanimously twice as often as Bush and 1.5 times as often as Clinton. Obama also passed Bush's 8-year total in less than 5 years.
• The Justice Department's unanimous loss rate from 2012 to 2014 was especially bad - 13 cases in 30 months - almost three times Bush's overall rate and almost twice Clinton's (and that doesn't count amicus litigating positions with unanimous losses).

Another indication of the aggressiveness of the Obama administration is the high portion of losses at the Supreme Court. Obama's administration loses ten percent more of their cases than the next least successful modern (since Truman) president, Kennedy.

Some of these cases were so callous and disregarded existing law so badly that one wonders why, upon reading of the case in the morning newspaper, Obama didn't start firing people. For example, Sackett v. EPA is breathtaking in its attempted increase of government power. The EPA actually claimed in this case that the Sackett family, who had started to build a home on land that the EPA deemed to be wetlands, did not have standing to sue the EPA until they paid a large fine and reversed construction on the site.

How do you define "elitist?"

According to 538 average income of sanders voters is the same as average income of clinton voters, both of which are significantly less than average income of trump voters.

> He's every bit the ego-maniac Trump is.

How did this go from a discussion of Bernie's electability to attacking his character? Now I'm thinking you are just being tribal, I'm guessing your tribe is establishment republican or possibly ron paul libertarian.

Hillary gets a lot of free press - about how awesome she is, about how she did this or that for the good of mankind.

The "free press" Trump gets is pretty much all "look at the insane thing Trump is doing now" or "this new person thinks Trump is Hitler, don't you agree".

Seriously? That's what the world looks like to you, a bunch of Hillary love? That's what you see happening through your bias filter? You think people share all these stories about how Hillary is our savior? Is that what your gut tells you is going on with the man on the street?

Here's the reality. Clinton and Trump are both historically disliked. A lot of people hate Clinton, and a lot of people hate Trump, and both are disliked by a majority. Neither candidate is universally liked, in fact neither candidate is really even liked beyond their relatively small bases. Shit, a lot of Republicans don't even like Trump, he's right up there with Cruz among dislike. And most people other than Democrat party loyalists don't like Clinton either.

The Sanders campaign is what a love-fest looks like. Hillary's campaign is the same shit we've seen for decades, the only people behind her are people who don't think there's a problem with government. Trump is something completely different, he'll just outright tell you that he didn't say something that he was recorded saying and act like you should believe him. It's bizarre.

I would happily take a President Camacho over having to deal with a Hillary Clinton. The woman has little chance of beating Trump. She's at a huge disadvantage because she triggers a very negative reaction at the genetic level in the vast majority of males. She sounds like that nagging aunt that you wanted to slap around when you were young. That along with her insane stance on trying to push gun control will doom her by pushing a good number of Democrats over to Trump.

While I think you accurately portray the emotional feelings that some (or even "many") have to Clinton, I don't think you have accurately captured the feelings of the electorate overall. Maybe people are lying to the pollsters or somehow the pollsters are doing everything wrong, but Clinton's favourability ratings have been much higher than Trumps since he entered the Republican race, and that does not seem to have changed much:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

http://elections.huffingtonpos...

Now, I am not saying that any of this guarantees a Clinton win, but I think we need to be careful to not project our own feelings about the candidates onto what "the masses" are feeling. Of course being brilliant, insightful individuals with superior congnitive skills, "the masses" SHOULD feel like we do, but often they somehow don't seem to. Strangely enough, on contentious issues like gun control, abortion, ecconomic policies, and everything else - a large fraction of the population DOES NOT AGREE with our right and proper views! That is why they are contentious issues.

Sure, things are likely to change over the course of the campaign, but right now more people dislike Trump (58%) than dislike Clinton (50%) and more people like Clinton (42%) than like Trump (33%).

Here is some more combined polling data from a few weeks back, which seems to be even more extreme:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/...

It may be hard (or almost impossible) to understand WHY so many people do not share our good and correct feelings about these candidates, but to think that Clinton "triggers a very negative reaction at the genetic level in the vast majority of males" is just wrong unless "vast majority" means something different than what I think it means - the data just doesn't support it.

This has been noted in lots of other articles.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

Fact is that the total number of manufacturing jobs worldwide has been declining for years.

--Paul

So, yes I have, and as a fiscal conservative, who also has to support a mother who can't survive on her social security w/o my help, I found the following article very intriguing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

No the point is he shouldn't have to do it.

Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him. Even if you think the reporter shouldn't have asked the question, his initial refusal to disavow was pretty unacceptable as responses go.

Every time there's an election. When the media tends to harass one one candidate more than others, they are clearly being biased. Do you support media bias?

If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump, giving him ridiculous amounts of free coverage. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/. It also does not follow that if a given candidate his having the media call out a lot of the things the candidate says that the media is being biased. It can also indicate that the candidate is really saying a lot of crazy stuff. (Which in this case is pretty accurate.)

Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies

You probably won't believe it but I have heard people say they are strongly supportive of abortion because minorities get more abortions.

That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.

Trump isn't racist and in fact is more closely aligned with blacks on some issues than most candidates, specifically about illegal immigration. Economically, blacks support a higher minimum wage and tighter immigration control.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You appear to be arguing that he can't be racist because he agrees with blacks on a specific issue. However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks. Moreover, your claim about blacks and immigration is incorrect. Black Americans are consistently more pro-immigration than white Americans. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree. And again, you seem to be ignoring what I said in my first comment: I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.

Actually, he was asked if people should be punished for doing an illegal thing. After that the media just ran with it. It was a well executed journalistic sucker punch.

No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.

It doesn't show that Trump is evil, just that he can't handle the media as if he were a politician.

Um, no one used the word "evil" here but you. But no, if anything he handles the media far better than most politicians. See e.g. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/.

Trump's real crime is that he's no good at handling hostile reporters trying to harvest a juicy sound bite.

No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.

Hillary, on the other hand... every time Sanders wins a primary it seems her lead increases. So much for the "Democratic" party.

Funny thing how that works. I think the key is probably "seems". Since almost all of the Dem primaries are allocate delligates proportionally, if one candidate wins many states by a tiny bit, but looses a few states by a lot, it is possible to win the majority of deligates even without winning many states.

In any case, for this particular race, while Sanders does seem to be getting a lot of press whenever he does well, he really needs to do amazingly well in the remaining primaries in order to make up for how far he is behind currently.

If he could do something like that or if Clinton revealed she was an agent for vampire aliens from Mars, it at least is possible that the "superdelegates" could change their minds, but in most tight races those deligates tip the scales her way. It doesn't seem like a super tight race as things now stand.

I found this interesting: superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.

It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.

The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.

It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.

The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.

It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.

By that standard all study of human behavior is complete bullshit because there's no standard definition of anything. Even legal terms can mean completely different things depending on cultural context. Just ask the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Or hell take Medicine. Whose to say your sharp pain is my sharp pain?

And the obvious rebuttal is that we can measure human behavior by what people actually do as well as a bunch of other objective criteria (like deaths from cause X), rather than what other people feel they did. You give a couple of examples in your reply that illustrate this point handsomely.

Number one, I've never heard of any school (except some particularly conservative Christian ones) that even tries to figure out a prospective students political beliefs.

Didn't you just spend a considerable bit of time telling me about how things perceived by one person are not perceived by another? Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This article describes research that claims enormous bias in social studies (social psychology here):

Dude, this is another Non sequitur

The original claim you;re defending has nothing to do with PostDocs or Profs it was: "preferential treatment in college admissions based on ethnicity, gender, and political belief."

You've presented no evidence of preferential treatment in admissions due to political belief, apparently because that was entirely your own delusion.

Here's the thing, if you turn the problem around and ask the question a bit differently all the moral force. Unless black people are stupider then white people you cannot have a fair college admissions system that results in 18% of the applicants getting 5% of the slots.

What is the point of such speculation when you ignore dropout rate? According to this link, we have comparable enrollment in college between Caucasian and African American, but much lower graduation rates (in six years). 60% of the former group graduates in six years, while 40% of African Americans graduate in six years. That indicates to me that enrollment rates for African Americans are too high and/or too ambitious. It makes little sense to speak of fairness of enrollment, when you ignore fairness of outcome.

So your response to my pointing out the implication of your argument is that racism is true (as is shown by lower admission rates), is to offer another proof that racism is true (as is shown by lower graduation rates).

And your solution to the problem is not "let's try to figure out what we can do to fix this," it's to say "well I guess racism is true."

Okey Dokey Smokey.

When the actual science majors did the work, they got a 3% non-political number, and none of the 97% of scientists who they put in the "thinks anthropogenic global warming is fucking real and we should do something pretty fucking Al Gore-like about that shit"

First, when I used the term, "fraudulent" I didn't mean it in a metaphorical sense.

Allow me to be blunt:
That's how science works all the time. Everybody always thinks they know how the experiment will go, and they all have a plan to get maximum exposure so that their colleagues will hear their names and their careers will grow. By arguing otherwise you indicate that your uinderstanding of science is based entirely on what your fifth-grade teacher told you.

When a study is done on a political position in science, and the method is to list studies by political position, the only way to refute that study is get statements form a significant number of people who did the studied studies saying th

By that standard all study of human behavior is complete bullshit because there's no standard definition of anything. Even legal terms can mean completely different things depending on cultural context. Just ask the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Or hell take Medicine. Whose to say your sharp pain is my sharp pain?

And the obvious rebuttal is that we can measure human behavior by what people actually do as well as a bunch of other objective criteria (like deaths from cause X), rather than what other people feel they did. You give a couple of examples in your reply that illustrate this point handsomely.

Number one, I've never heard of any school (except some particularly conservative Christian ones) that even tries to figure out a prospective students political beliefs.

Didn't you just spend a considerable bit of time telling me about how things perceived by one person are not perceived by another? Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This article describes research that claims enormous bias in social studies (social psychology here):

Unfortunately, new research also shows that academia has itself stopped short in both the understanding and practice of true diversity â" the diversity of ideas â" and that the problem is taking a toll on the quality and accuracy of scholarly work. This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists.

Why the imbalance? The researchers found evidence of discrimination and hostility within academia toward conservative researchers and their viewpoints. In one survey cited, 79 percent of social psychologists admitted they would be less likely to support hiring a conservative colleague than a liberal scholar with equivalent qualifications.

Moving on, you then wrote:

Here's the thing, if you turn the problem around and ask the question a bit differently all the moral force. Unless black people are stupider then white people you cannot have a fair college admissions system that results in 18% of the applicants getting 5% of the slots.

What is the point of such speculation when you ignore dropout rate? According to this link, we have comparable enrollment in college between Caucasian and African American, but much lower graduation rates (in six years). 60% of the former group graduates in six years, while 40% of African Americans graduate in six years. That indicates to me that enrollment rates for African Americans are too high and/or too ambitious. It makes little sense to speak of fairness of enrollment, when you ignore fairness of outcome.

When the actual science majors did the work, they got a 3% non-political number, and none of the 97% of scientists who they put in the "thinks anthropogenic global warming is fucking real and we should do something pretty fucking Al Gore-like about that shit"

First, when I used the term, "fraudulent" I didn't mean it in a metaphorical sense. A few years later, emails came out which indicated the evaluation process was heavily political (the article quotes emails from the primary author, John Cook, outlining marketing strategies for a study which hadn't been done yet). For example, he wrote:

This thread is for general discussions of how to market TCP (began in t

People don't like Trump, but they FUCKING HATE Hillary.

Actually, the data seem to show that they hate Trump even more than Clinton:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

--by the way, how come you refer to Donald Trump always by his last name ("Trump") but Hillary Clinton by her first name ("Hillary")? Isn't that a little asymmetrical?

Wait... are you seeing polls and demographics the rest of the country doesn't have access to? Curious how you came up with the notion that "Republicans... know they have a pretty good chance of getting a Republican President..." Is Faux News showing "unskewed *wink wink* polls" again?

I ask because if the SAME proportion of demographics show up to vote as in 2012, the election goes to the Dems. The population change among demographics has shifted further in favor of Dems in 4 years as well.

Here, you can play with the sliders yourself and see what t'd take for Reps to win. It's not going to be easy for them:
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

Now, I get that there's this myth of the swing voter out there, but polls and statistics show there are very few of them as the nation is largely polarized. It's just a matter of voter turnout for each demographic. There is a slight possibility that the younger demographic and the African American demographic may not have as large a turnout as with Obama's second term, but it's unlikely.

People, volunteer to install this app. Before smartphones, people actually carried around dedicated hardware that could detect sub sonic audio codes embedded in media. This was especially useful for radio ratings because people could be exposed to a radio station almost anywhere. Now that the ability to watch a TV show is just as ubiquitous, this app is actually a really good idea.

For a fascinating story about this kind of thing, check this out: Did Nielsen Kill the Radio Star?

He has used fewer EOs than any president in the last half century.

It's a shame there isn't some sort of global information network to check this sort of thing...

A shame indeed.

Maybe you should call out George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. for having made executive orders. They probably didn't understand the Constitution.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...