PDA

View Full Version : Republican Disarray??



David G
10-29-2015, 10:54 AM
According to Nate Silver --

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/maybe-republicans-really-are-in-disarray/

RonW
10-29-2015, 11:08 AM
According to Nate Silver --

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/maybe-republicans-really-are-in-disarray/

What a idiot and from the site silver says-----
The 112th and 113th congresses were among the least productive ever as measured by the amount of legislation passed, with filibusters and other parliamentary tactics used frequently.

Which means let's pass laws like nancy pelosi did, even if we don't have time to read them or know what's in them, so let's create more government that no one understands and raise taxes to support a hodge podge of misguided uninformed bureaucrats that are destroying the country and call it what. A victory, only in the liberal mind.

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 11:11 AM
Maybe in disarray?

Nate Silver's reputation has taken a big hit (http://qz.com/401217/in-the-uk-nate-silver-finally-found-an-election-he-couldnt-predict/) this year. Not surprisingly, his piece equivocates right out the gate. "Maybe" in disarray?

That's helpful.:rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
10-29-2015, 11:40 AM
The point of the pieces is not to argue 'The Republicans are FUBAR' but to look at the evidence for Republican internal divisions, and gauge their effects on the party and their plausibility. It does this quite carefully, and as far as I can tell, accurately. Ron, of course, thinks anyone is an idiot who doesn't agree with him.

Nate Silver doesn't always get it right. Predicting the future is difficult for mere mortals, but he's one of the best we have. That's one of the more clear-headed looks at the question that I've seen.

From the article:


So then, the “Republicans in Disarray!” theory has been debunked? No, not really; I just wanted to present both sides of the case. (Welcome to FiveThirtyEight, the site where we argue against ourselves.) Grand theories of politics are hard to prove definitively given the paucity of actual election results (just one data point every two or four years, depending on how you’re counting). The “Republicans in Disarray!” argument is credible, and pretty convincing when applied to Congress. But it’s not dispositive. Even if you buy it, you also have to decide where the theory applies; what effect it has on presidential primaries (as opposed to congressional elections) or on election outcomes (as opposed to governance once a candidate is elected to office) is hard to say.

David G
10-29-2015, 11:44 AM
The point of the pieces is not to argue 'The Republicans are FUBAR' but to look at the evidence for Republican interval disputes, and gauge their effects on the party and their plausibility. It does this quite carefully, and as far as I can tell, accurately. Ron, of course, thinks anyone is an idiot who doesn't agree with him.

Sure... you could call it mealy-mouthed. But I agree... he was simply being judicious. The more blindly partisan one is, the less comfortable one is with rigorously accurate and even-handed. Some folks contributions here have proven to be beneath contempt. Some seem to be actively angling for that level of gravitas.

CWSmith
10-29-2015, 11:49 AM
... Ron, of course, thinks anyone is an idiot who doesn't agree with him.


It's his go-to argument for all things.

Keith Wilson
10-29-2015, 11:49 AM
Sure... you could call it mealy-mouthed.And you could call the alternatives pig-headed. :d One aspect of wisdom is knowing what one doesn't know, and Nate Silver's pretty good at that.

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 11:59 AM
If one's argument on a thesis is "maybe" then surely it is time to gather and evaluate more data until such equivocation can be removed.

Nate Silver does not make his living on "maybe" nor is he paid to "debate himself." Except perhaps for the instant piece. Maybe.

CPF
10-29-2015, 12:27 PM
Nate Silver's reputation has taken a big hit (http://qz.com/401217/in-the-uk-nate-silver-finally-found-an-election-he-couldnt-predict/) this year. :rolleyes:

From the link: "But in the UK election of 2015, he was wrong. Then again, so was everyone else."

That's a big hit? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 12:39 PM
From the link: "But in the UK election of 2015, he was wrong. Then again, so was everyone else."

That's a big hit? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

A fair point, but if you read the first sentence of the piece linked in the OP, you will see a statement of suspicion on "overarching political narratives," which, Silver must necessarily concede, he enabled with his own faulty work for the Labour Party in Britain. This undoubtedly led in part to the party's failure to change course prior to the election. Labour was flying completely blind.

While others were wrong, those others are not Nate Silver.

David G
10-29-2015, 01:06 PM
A fair point, but if you read the first sentence of the piece linked in the OP, you will see a statement of suspicion on "overarching political narratives," which, Silver must necessarily concede, he enabled with his own faulty work for the Labour Party in Britain. This undoubtedly led in part to the party's failure to change course prior to the election. Labour was flying completely blind.

While others were wrong, those others are not Nate Silver.

Is it my imagination... or are your 'defenses' of your various hyperbolic and sophistic pronouncements getting... more halfhearted?

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 01:09 PM
Do you have a substantive rebuttal to my comments about Silver and his piece, David G?

David G
10-29-2015, 01:13 PM
Do you have a substantive rebuttal to my comments about Silver and his piece, David G?

Possibly. Do you have any substantive comments that I might rebut or agree with?

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 01:20 PM
Why should I play that game, David G? You started a thread, I commented on it, you whined to Keith, and then turned it personal against me for want of any opinion of your own, apparently.

Not a good start for you today, David G.

johnw
10-29-2015, 02:01 PM
The apparent disarray could just be a symptom of success. People on the conservative edge of the party aren't worried about losing the House, nor should they be.

Remember the old Will Rogers quote? "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

He said that when the Democrats enjoyed a large majority in congress. Perhaps when you have secure power, there's more controversy about how to use it.

Sky Blue
10-29-2015, 02:15 PM
Perhaps when you have secure power, there's more controversy about how to use it.

I think that is absolutely right.

RonW
10-29-2015, 02:21 PM
Why should I play that game, David G? You started a thread, I commented on it, you whined to Keith, and then turned it personal against me for want of any opinion of your own, apparently.

Not a good start for you today, David G.

Typical day in the bilge.....wasn't the commentators last night a hoot........and embarrassment to america........well of course they are uninformed liberals..

David G
10-29-2015, 08:15 PM
Why should I play that game, David G? You started a thread, I commented on it, you whined to Keith, and then turned it personal against me for want of any opinion of your own, apparently.

Not a good start for you today, David G.

You have a very 'interesting' grasp of reality. I whined to Keith? Nope. Want of opinion? Not likely. Not a good start? I must differ.

Seriously... are your responses getting sloppier? Or is it my imagination? Are you losing interest in accuracty, even-handedness, and relevancy... or were you never actually interested in same?