Posted on 11/16/2024 1:30:58 PM PST by Gen.Blather
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhaNiF5aCCY&t=6s
This is the best scientific explanation of why we'll never get the exact candidate we want. If he's perfect for us then 60 percent of the voting electorate views him as poison. Great presentation.
This is the best scientific explanation of why we'll never get the exact candidate we want. If he's perfect for us then 60 percent of the voting electorate views him as poison. Great presentation.
I don’t know, I’m pretty happy with the candidate we got!
Sounds interesting.
But, I will not watch a 24 minute video to hear the explanation.
Not directed at you or anyone else. Just my personal opinion.
I hate the emphasis on video presentations.
Yeah, I’m an old fart that reads about 500-600 wpm. Even much faster if I’m looking for the main point.
I simply don’t have time to listen to rambling presentations on every subject that might interest me.
However, I’m quite certain my rant isn’t going to change anything. But, it felt good to vent that frustration.
Thanks for reading!
I’m thrilled with Trump. My take on the video is that because of bad polling the Democrats went ape$hit to the Left because they had no idea where the median voter was. (Actually, I don’t think the people running the party even cared. They were living in their own universe and thought they could run a corpse or an idiot and still win.) Trump was a populist which means he’s to the left of what I’ll call “traditional” Republicans and to the right of (I’m stick for an adequate term here) “sane?” Democrats. What the Democrats went for was a weird cocktail of Leftist loons. If they’d been close to centrist, they probably would have beaten Trump. But as Spaniel points out, they don’t know where the center is.
The fact Trump won convincingly despite the cheat machine speaks to just how insane the Democrats have gotten. I tried to think of a Democrat that would seem moderate. There were a few and they turned out for Trump.
Okay. I generally don’t watch presentations unless I like the author already. To get a condensed version read post 4.
*WE* are the 60++ percent, and we got exactly the candidate we wanted.
You said:
This is the best scientific explanation of why we’ll never get the exact candidate we want. If he’s perfect for us then 60 percent of the voting electorate views him as poison. Great presentation.
And:
This is the best scientific explanation of why we’ll never get the exact candidate we want. If he’s perfect for us then 60 percent of the voting electorate views him as poison. Great presentation.
So, if I’m correct, you’re saying:
This is the best scientific explanation of why we’ll never get the exact candidate we want. If he’s perfect for us then 60 percent of the voting electorate views him as poison. Great presentation.
That about sum it up?
I tried to condense a very good presentation, and I left a lot out. William Spaniel is well worth your time if you have an interest in how and why things work the way they do.
Fair enough. :-)
I agree with you. I almost never watch a video, unless the subject *needs* motion. I get the info much faster from text (with still images if appropriate), especially since people tend to ramble more when speaking — unless they’re reading from a script. In that case, just publish the script, at least as an alternative.
I wonder if this emphasis on video is (at least partly) due to our worsening education system. Not enough people can read well, much less write well.
“This is the best scientific explanation of why we’ll never get the exact candidate we want.”
Junk science - and the author should speak for himself - because I got the candidate I wanted in 12 out of 19 races - the ones I didn’t want are followed by an X.
1952 Eisenhower
1956 Eisenhower
1960 Nixon
1964 Goldwater
1968 Nixon
1972 Nixon
1976 Ford X
1980 Reagan
1984 Reagan
1988 Bush X
1992 Bush X
1996 Dole
2000 Bush X
2004 Bush X
2008 McCain X
2012 Romney X
2016 Trump
2020 Trump
2024 Trump
12 out of 19 - I’d say that’s a pretty solid lifetime record, and if I live long enough, I suspect I’ll get the candidate I want twice more (Vance).
I'm 86 and read very rapidly and I have a high recall %/rate.
Once you accept that you have begun to move from being a child into an adult mind set.
The world is imperfect and messy.
Deal with it.
Well said.
There is also a interesting paradox in voting (the Condorcet paradox):
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/paradox-voting
The simplest example is:
a majority of voters rank A > B > C,
while a *different* majority rank B > C > A,
and another different majority rank C > A > B,
etc.
Obviously, these majorities will have some overlap with each other. (Unless enough different graveyards are used.)
There is a whole lot more about voting theory at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
Things that make you say, “hummm.”
Thanks.
“Actually, I don’t think the people running the party even cared. “
Exactly! They don’t care what people want, they want to change what people want to what the party wants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.