- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,573
- Reaction score
- 28,350
Thanks for you advice, but it's poor advice.
It's wonderful advice if your goal is rationality. Maybe not if it's propaganda that is unconstrained by the need to be accurate.
People, including you, do not and should not operate this way. This reminds me of the time Mr. Fa @Fawlty was confident that Woodley would beat Usman and even tried to criticize the bettors who made the line for "underpricing" Woodley. Anyone of average perceptive ability who had actually followed the careers of both men would be at the least very unsure of Woodley's ability to win the fight. People who hadn't paid attention to Usman's incredible accomplishments to that point were surprised.
The analogy here is with the people not actually paying attention to Biden's poor performance on the campaign trail but in love with the idea of Biden. I am confident that if/when Biden v Trump appear together on the debate stage, it's going to be similar to when Mr. Fa watched Usman dominate Woodley's for five rounds---they will be surprised that Biden (Woodley) is lacking many of the basic skills necessary to perform the job. I also claim the opposite would happen if Buttigieg and Trump were on that stage together. Articulateness, composure, effective argumentation....these are qualities that the average human brain is finely tuned to but no computer model can currently measure.
Again, where's the evidence that those things are major factors in a race? How much better do you think Trump would have performed if he were not far less articulate, composed, and effective in his arguments? What about Bush? How do you set the baseline?
This also connects to a ridiculous claim you have made repeatedly (apparently parroting Paul "Bitcoin is evil" Krugman and Nate "Donald Trump isn't a real candidate" Silver, as you are prone to do): "no one knows anything about electability". A donkey (@Limbo Pete) is not electable. If we restrict ourselves to humans, a person with Down's Syndrome is not electable. We do not need a regression analysis or a CNN "expert panel" to figure this out. We humans (@senri) have the ability to discern qualities of people that no model can predict. The irony here is that you, Mr Jack, actually predicted that Joseph Biden would fall off from the top position....but how could you know such as thing if "electability" is a mirage? You are engaging in doublethink here, so make up your mind. Is electability discernible or not?
So, first, it's amusing to me that you're unable to conceive of others forming views based on evidence rather than "parroting" various gurus, as you do (with your cock carousels, mother-forgiving calls, etc.). Second, my claim is that electability is unpredictable within reasonable parameters (anyone who wins a major-party nomination has a good chance to win, for example), not that it's a mirage. It's like if I say that you can't predict the outcome of a single MLB game with much confidence. That doesn't mean that the outcomes are completely random or that you couldn't predict that a major league team would beat a high school team with a lot of confidence. Third, my view is that Biden's position is a little weaker than it looks in the polls because I think that perceived electability is a factor in his success, which is something that could evaporate quickly if he hits a snag. He is the frontrunner, though.