Not sure I like the idea of "the Donald" as president. FDR was the President who I grew up with. JGAIA
1
More and more meaningful reader comments are being made although there's a limit to how close they can ever, ever come. Fun to read them though for what it's worth. JGAIA
1
And what if....
the Republican convention is next week and it's still
a three way race with Trump at 47%, Cruz at 29%,
Rubio at 21% and Kasich at 3%.
At the convention the first ballot happens without
anyone getting a clear majority. There's a second vote and still nobody wins.
The convention and the Party are in complete disarray.
Behind closed doors Rubio and Kasich throw their support to Cruz
in an "anybody but Trump" strategy.
Kasich gets the nod for Vice President to "promote diversity"
and provide experience and wisdom on the ticket as
well as to lock down the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
On the 3rd vote Cruz gets 52% of the vote and Trump 48%.
Cruz gets the Republican nomination for President and
the complete disaster of a Trump candidacy is narrowly avoided.
My scenario is as likely as yours so we will have to see.
Uncertainty can chance things in a big way in a short time.
And politics is not necessarily easily subject to statistical analysis.
It's kind of like trying to herd cats.
the Republican convention is next week and it's still
a three way race with Trump at 47%, Cruz at 29%,
Rubio at 21% and Kasich at 3%.
At the convention the first ballot happens without
anyone getting a clear majority. There's a second vote and still nobody wins.
The convention and the Party are in complete disarray.
Behind closed doors Rubio and Kasich throw their support to Cruz
in an "anybody but Trump" strategy.
Kasich gets the nod for Vice President to "promote diversity"
and provide experience and wisdom on the ticket as
well as to lock down the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
On the 3rd vote Cruz gets 52% of the vote and Trump 48%.
Cruz gets the Republican nomination for President and
the complete disaster of a Trump candidacy is narrowly avoided.
My scenario is as likely as yours so we will have to see.
Uncertainty can chance things in a big way in a short time.
And politics is not necessarily easily subject to statistical analysis.
It's kind of like trying to herd cats.
But the complete disaster of a Cruz candidacy is not narrowly avoided
"Crikey, there’s even the chance that the Republican Party may wake up and realize that their party is slipping away from them."
This statement encapsulates why persons in the media do not understand Trump. The Republican Party (and the Democratic Party) are the people who vote. It is impossible for a party to slip away from itself. Trump is accelerating a re-alignment of the coalitions of the two parties.
If you love majoritarianism, you should love this election. The candidate who has no support from the political and financial elite is winning his party's nomination. Have a little faith in the American voter.
This statement encapsulates why persons in the media do not understand Trump. The Republican Party (and the Democratic Party) are the people who vote. It is impossible for a party to slip away from itself. Trump is accelerating a re-alignment of the coalitions of the two parties.
If you love majoritarianism, you should love this election. The candidate who has no support from the political and financial elite is winning his party's nomination. Have a little faith in the American voter.
1
So why does being a "Bayesian" always seem to amount to: "I'm going to stick to my priors come hell or high water."
When do you "Bayesians" ever adjust your priors in the face of contrary evidence?
Bayesianism is the last refuge of the ideologue.
When do you "Bayesians" ever adjust your priors in the face of contrary evidence?
Bayesianism is the last refuge of the ideologue.
No, it means you update your beliefs as more data comes in - it adjusts. The prior is either unimforative or informative, meaning it either doesn't help the prediction or it does. The point is, the probabilities change as conditions change.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I will give him this: he has proved political pundits are full of hot air!
8
I think we need to stop letting Bayesians into the country until we find out what's going on.
Upshot editor: Haha. A+ comment.
Upshot editor: Haha. A+ comment.
10
Justin, we've scrutinized Trump to death. Regardless of that, he has captured the media and obviously a huge segment of discontented Americans. Also, pointedly against him has been his inability to present doable policy. If insult, blather and gesticulation don’t awaken the voters, what will?
What is the difference between 82% and 67%? Little!
What is the difference between 82% and 67%? Little!
5
Possibly the GOP voters feel that as bad as Trump is, Cruz and Rubio are even worse.
I never imagined I would get nostalgic for Romney.
I never imagined I would get nostalgic for Romney.
4
What happens if the Donald turns "nice" the day after he wins the nomination?
4
"Yet Trump’s support has stayed firm even as he has made statements that I would have thought would offend yuge numbers of people, including women, Hispanics, Muslims and the disabled."
I think this should tell you all you need to know about who is supporting Trump and why waiting for the other shoe to drop isn't going to work. Trump has been throwing so many shoes on the floor since he started his campaign that everyone who could be alienated already has been. So, unless you can demonstrate that the electorate who will vote in the Republican primaries in the remaining states is somehow mostly comprised of the people Trump has offended, I don't see how he can't be the nominee.
(Nice reference to Bayesians, by the way, Justin. I have just revised upward my prior probability of the goodness of your future articles.)
I think this should tell you all you need to know about who is supporting Trump and why waiting for the other shoe to drop isn't going to work. Trump has been throwing so many shoes on the floor since he started his campaign that everyone who could be alienated already has been. So, unless you can demonstrate that the electorate who will vote in the Republican primaries in the remaining states is somehow mostly comprised of the people Trump has offended, I don't see how he can't be the nominee.
(Nice reference to Bayesians, by the way, Justin. I have just revised upward my prior probability of the goodness of your future articles.)
4
It's just about time for pundits to put aside their obvious biases against Trump and come to terms with the fact that he is almost certainly going to win the Republican nomination. Once upon a time, it may have been rightly reckoned a black swan event for Trump to win the nomination; now it will require a black swan event for him to fail to do so.
The only interesting remaining question is whether he will beat Hillary. I suggest pundits try speculate as to who would win, and why. And I think they should engage this question with a rich sense of their prior failure to predict, or even come to terms with, Trump's steamroll to the Republican nomination.
The only interesting remaining question is whether he will beat Hillary. I suggest pundits try speculate as to who would win, and why. And I think they should engage this question with a rich sense of their prior failure to predict, or even come to terms with, Trump's steamroll to the Republican nomination.
7
Trump can only win a Republican Primary. He cannot win a national election in which Democrats are permitted to vote.
3
I disagree. You don't think Dems are sick/tired of the same ole hypercritical nonsense too?
1
David Cay Johnston has been writing for years about Trump's taxes, income, and wealth. See, for instance, http://www.nationalmemo.com/9-key-points-about-trumps-income-taxes-and-m... and http://www.nationalmemo.com/21-questions-for-donald-trump/ He predicts that the IRS Form 1040 won't tell much (just as the recent 1040s from Cruz and Rubio don't), but he suggests that they might show that Mr Trump paid no taxes at all in recent years, and that that might be the reason he doesn't want to disclose them.
1
There's a lot to learn and know about a guy like Trump. How much of what we already know casts him in a positive light? Very little.
We have a lot more to learn about him. And there's a much greater than 50% chance that what we discover going forward will be damaging to him in some way.
If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm advising the campaign troops to continue sandbagging for the moment, holding back all sorts of critical bits of info in reserve. Let Trump secure the nomination, then open the floodgates of infamy and disable him as a national candidate. Why nuke him out of the race now and then have to face Rubio?
Democratic operatives won't be working alone. All sorts of people will be going at Trump from various angles. The GOP will surely want to let him go down in isolation so that his doom impairs as few statewide elections as possible.
We have a lot more to learn about him. And there's a much greater than 50% chance that what we discover going forward will be damaging to him in some way.
If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm advising the campaign troops to continue sandbagging for the moment, holding back all sorts of critical bits of info in reserve. Let Trump secure the nomination, then open the floodgates of infamy and disable him as a national candidate. Why nuke him out of the race now and then have to face Rubio?
Democratic operatives won't be working alone. All sorts of people will be going at Trump from various angles. The GOP will surely want to let him go down in isolation so that his doom impairs as few statewide elections as possible.
3
Congratulations! This is the first article I've read that mentions the concept that Trump may not be wealthy-- or as as wealthy as he advertises himself.
My assumption has always been Trump ran for President to burnish his brand--because he is broke! Can't prove it, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
My assumption has always been Trump ran for President to burnish his brand--because he is broke! Can't prove it, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
4
You are certainly right about Trump's shaky finances, but it's not really all that big a secret.
It seems to me that it would be smart for Trump to let Cruz win in Texas. I am sure he has considered it already. Of course Trump will give lip service to wanting to win, but we could divine his intent by looking at where he spends money and time in the next few hours. Cruz has no realistic path to winning the nomination but his role as vote-splitter is absolutely crucial to Trump.
9
You guys play with stacked decks. And deal from the bottom, the middle, anywhere but from the top. All your percentages and odds are predicated on Trump's having snookered a sizable percentage of a small portion of the American electorate known as "Republicans likely to vote." Now, Republicans make up, according Pew and other opinion polls, 26% of the total voting eligible population. Democrats and Independents split the rest equally at 36%, with the remaining 2% who-knows-what.
All the hand-wringing and face and armpit sweating about Trump running away with the election is predicated on him getting 100% of 26% (which is still just 1/4 of the voters) AND 35% of all Democratic and Independent voters combined. There's no way Trump will garner 100% of the Republican vote and snowball's chance in Death Valley that he would get even 5% of the Democratic portion. Do you really think the Independents will put him over the 50% mark? And then there's the Electoral College barrier.
It's hurricane in a thimble.
All the hand-wringing and face and armpit sweating about Trump running away with the election is predicated on him getting 100% of 26% (which is still just 1/4 of the voters) AND 35% of all Democratic and Independent voters combined. There's no way Trump will garner 100% of the Republican vote and snowball's chance in Death Valley that he would get even 5% of the Democratic portion. Do you really think the Independents will put him over the 50% mark? And then there's the Electoral College barrier.
It's hurricane in a thimble.
8
Your e-mailed teaser, "the Unimaginable Should Now Be Counted as Possible" fooled me. I assumed that it referred to Hillary overcoming her FBI investigation and the behind-the-scenes manipulations of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and somehow shrieking her way to the presidency.
6
I don't think 1 in 100 GOP voters is waiting with bated breath for Trump to release his tax returns. Other GOP contenders have already gotten away with releasing excerpts or summaries. So don't pin your hopes on taxes bringing Trump down.
4
I think voting is like bad research: people see a pattern in phenomena, but don’t know the rule by which it was produced; they test the hypothesis suggested to them by these data with the very same data—and then find that their hypothesis is sustained. It never fails.
6
Judging by how the Republicans have treated President Obama for the last 7 years, I would think that an endorsement from the KKK would be much sought after.
28
Voters don't vote on candidates abilities but on their relative abilities. Sure Trump has several obvious faults but compared to Clinton he looks terrific at least to the sane part of the electorate. Clinton and Jeb Bush are part of the crony capitalist sphere that runs the us government just as Putin has his own buddies who largely run Russia. I don't see any major difference between bill gates and buffet and Putins cronies, except that the Americans are richer. If Trump can get by the next two weeks and win the republican nomination I think he glides easily to the presidency against a known repulsive low life like Clinton. If Trump doesn't win the republican nod then the republicans probably lose yet again because many of Trumps supporters will stay home. So really the Republicans only chance is Trump.
3
Well, I consider my self to be part of the sane part of the electorate and cannot follow you a bit. Clinton looks like the only electable choice here. Just imagine Trumps short fingers on the nuclear trigger. Will he nuke Mexico city if they do not pay for the wall. Come on, kid ! You must be joking...
8
I don't know what to wish for, GOP-wise. As a sane person, I'm a yellow-dog Democrat. Apparently extinct in its original habitat, only a coastal zoo animal.
So my preference would be Donald. He's not a slave to the Vatican! Leetle joke.
So my preference would be Donald. He's not a slave to the Vatican! Leetle joke.
1
Clearly, Trump appeals to the type of voter who thinks it is clever to call someone a repulsive lowlife in a comment. I hope there are not enough of them.
10
The voters in question, Trump supporters, are certainly not Bayesians. A "Bayesian" in this sense is someone who makes judgements and inferences based on evidence and the probability of that evidence being correct and revises those judgements as new evidence emerges. This is not a description of a Trump supporter.
No need to revisits those assumptions, Nate. Revelations and attacks in the press will not change the views of these people.
No need to revisits those assumptions, Nate. Revelations and attacks in the press will not change the views of these people.
11
Yes - to that point. I do not believe that tax returns matter for Trump supporters.
2
Trump likes to see himself as a huge deal maker, so he'll play among deal makers and toss his support to their boy Rubio when reporters begin to sting him too much.
Fascinating, intelligent article and one I'll want to look back at a couple times as those long two weeks play out. However I think they missed something in being surprised that Trump's many statements haven't doomed him the way Romney's "47 percent" did. It is precisely because those same 47 percenters who hated Romney are now passionately supporting Trump (perhaps all the more passionately because of the sting that Romney left), that he has such staying power. And this is not rational support, so those other rational factors that might hurt him - the tax returns, the "scrutiny" - are probably not going to make a large dent any time soon. No I don't think the Trump support base are Bayesians right now. Remember, even Bayesians fall in love.
7
It's perfectly reasonable to state the Trump's probability of earning the Republican nomination is 81%. It's just that the standard deviation or tolerance on that 81% is very high because of the many unknowns. Trump's recovery from a post-Iowa low in the 20's up to the current 81% in only four weeks demonstrates the wide tolerance on these prediction market probabilities.
7
Statistically, you can only forecast something that is supported by causality and has a history of repeating itself. It may be a complex chain of causalities but causalities nonetheless. I sense the common wisdom states that the electorate reacts negatively to the actions and traits of Donald Trump - Bankruptcies, Egomania, Lies, Lack of knowledge, Racism, Sexism, serial law suits, etc. etc. Somehow the Republican electorate either ignores or dismisses such traits and actions and buys into the magic of the Trump name. That magic more likely than not is an illusion and Donald Trump maybe indeed nothing more than a con artist.
Will the tax return become a big deal then? I guess the answer is no. It is very unlikely that the information will be conclusive. Donald Trump already has publicly stated that what his wealth changes how he feels about it. So we know that it is not 10 Billion. More likely than not 100 million or so. The tax return will not reveal anything new; any wrongdoing will be murky enough. If it were not the IRS would have caught him long time ago.
Perhaps we can look elsewhere for clues. Berlusconi came to power in Italy. How did he manage it? Are there correlations?
Will the tax return become a big deal then? I guess the answer is no. It is very unlikely that the information will be conclusive. Donald Trump already has publicly stated that what his wealth changes how he feels about it. So we know that it is not 10 Billion. More likely than not 100 million or so. The tax return will not reveal anything new; any wrongdoing will be murky enough. If it were not the IRS would have caught him long time ago.
Perhaps we can look elsewhere for clues. Berlusconi came to power in Italy. How did he manage it? Are there correlations?
11
I am a little surprised that Trump's reaction to David Duke as an issue.
The fact is, all politicians accept all legal campaign contributions and votes. If you are able to give, they're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. There are many people who are one inch short of being revolutionary communists who vote for the Democratic candidate, and nobody says boo about them. Why should they? If you have a system where there are only two candidates, everybody, no matter how odious, has to vote for one of the two.
If Trump had said that, he would have cut through the fairy-tale assumptions of his questioner.
The fact is, all politicians accept all legal campaign contributions and votes. If you are able to give, they're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. There are many people who are one inch short of being revolutionary communists who vote for the Democratic candidate, and nobody says boo about them. Why should they? If you have a system where there are only two candidates, everybody, no matter how odious, has to vote for one of the two.
If Trump had said that, he would have cut through the fairy-tale assumptions of his questioner.
2
Here you go, the Communist Party USA is squarely behind Bernie Sanders:
http://cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/
Will any TV anchors ask Bernie whether he 'accepts' the support of CPUSA?
http://cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution/
Will any TV anchors ask Bernie whether he 'accepts' the support of CPUSA?
1
But you can bet Republican opposition researchers are praying he gets the nomination. By the time November rolls around 2/3 of Americans will believe he is either the second coming of Uncle Joe Stalin or Sanders real political source, leon Trotsky. In 1980...when he was already in his late 30s he was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party (SWP.) The SWP based its political ideology on Trotsky's notion of a permanent revolution.
@ Jonathan: In the hypothetical match-up between Trump and Bernie, who do you think wins? The person who is actively disliked/hated by 75% of the population (for whatever reason: maybe they have been insulted by him, maybe they are "of the establishment", etc.) or the "Socialist"?
If you said Trump, I'm sorry to say that I probably agree with you. It is a nice thought experiment for how much you think America hates the idea of Socialism, though.
If you said Trump, I'm sorry to say that I probably agree with you. It is a nice thought experiment for how much you think America hates the idea of Socialism, though.
I can only feel about the GOP presidential circus of 2016 what I felt about the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s: may mutual destruction be blessedly assured!
As for Marco Rubio, now that he has taken to channeling The Donald's coarse tilt toward bathroom sarcasm, a close examination of his résumé would be no less damning than that of The Donald.
In the meantime, beware of demagogues who prefix their names with the definite article. "Il Duce" pops to mind.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
As for Marco Rubio, now that he has taken to channeling The Donald's coarse tilt toward bathroom sarcasm, a close examination of his résumé would be no less damning than that of The Donald.
In the meantime, beware of demagogues who prefix their names with the definite article. "Il Duce" pops to mind.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
23
Justin points out that there are "hints that the press narrative may turn," while Nate believes "the media is finally beginning to attack Trump."
If the media does its job, unlike what it did in the buildup to the Iraq war, the Emperor will be seen to have no clothes.
Come on folks, this election isn't about ratings or papers sold, it's about who we are as a society; what we admire and what we allow.
And Trump is beyond the pale.
If the media does its job, unlike what it did in the buildup to the Iraq war, the Emperor will be seen to have no clothes.
Come on folks, this election isn't about ratings or papers sold, it's about who we are as a society; what we admire and what we allow.
And Trump is beyond the pale.
19
And Cruz is not beyond the pale? oleaginous Rubio?
Trump is a breath of GOP fresh air. And because he demonstrably has no principles, no actual agenda (beyond the obvious) I fear him less than the opportunistic wowsers of the Christian knuckledragging coalition.
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!". Yeah, not so bad to be old either!
Trump is a breath of GOP fresh air. And because he demonstrably has no principles, no actual agenda (beyond the obvious) I fear him less than the opportunistic wowsers of the Christian knuckledragging coalition.
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!". Yeah, not so bad to be old either!
11
and that much closer to heaven. Ugh.
John Oliver's piece on "Donald Drumpf" was the best attack on The Donald I have seen by anyone...leagues better than the crude junior high stuff from Cruz and Rubio. Check it out on YouTube.
1
It's possible, as I understand it, to be a Bayesian and still to put most weight on prior beliefs rather than on new evidence. That would seem to describe many voters.
6
Great Discussion,
The super problem with Trump is he is in denial of global warming and he threat it poses to our military and economic security. Former Mayor Bloomberg seems to recognize this threat and I am surprised that a person with the insights of Mr. Trump can't see what Mr. Bloomberg, George Schultz and other prominent Republican party leaders such as the high ranking military and intelligence officials see and have reported to Congress and President Obama. Global Warming is the big issue of this campaign, Bernie Sanders, instantly responded in the first debate that this was the greatest threat to our national security.
Trump knows that the real estate in low lying coast areas of the US and the World will be wiped out by rising seas and powerful storms.
It is time for him to kick butt and give names of the Wichita group and take them on. This will prove to me that he is made of the right stuff.
The super problem with Trump is he is in denial of global warming and he threat it poses to our military and economic security. Former Mayor Bloomberg seems to recognize this threat and I am surprised that a person with the insights of Mr. Trump can't see what Mr. Bloomberg, George Schultz and other prominent Republican party leaders such as the high ranking military and intelligence officials see and have reported to Congress and President Obama. Global Warming is the big issue of this campaign, Bernie Sanders, instantly responded in the first debate that this was the greatest threat to our national security.
Trump knows that the real estate in low lying coast areas of the US and the World will be wiped out by rising seas and powerful storms.
It is time for him to kick butt and give names of the Wichita group and take them on. This will prove to me that he is made of the right stuff.
5
With respect, I think reacting to Trump's "positions" is unnecessarily distracting. He has none. He's running a campaign, not a symposium. Positions will follow wherever his momentum leads. It's almost Heisenbergian!
8
Details are for losers ...
1
No one really cares as to Trump's positions because if he ever made it to the White House, everyone in Washington would ignore him anyhow.
Two of Trumps strengths to those who support him (not me) are (1) he considers border control to be a basic responsibility of government, in part to prevent wage depression at the low-wage end of the wage scale, and (2) he would entertain trade barriers that will adversely affect the Chinese who have siphoned off American jobs (and keep North Korea afloat economically). Party elites on both sides minimize these economic issues, and Trump supporters are so angry about this that they like Trump's profanity and in-you-face rhetoric.
14