All three of you knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I prolly shouldn’t bother to do this, but I’ll respond in depth to this post and to the underlying “accusations”.
If Trump had not won the election, I would have breathed a sigh of relief and noted how grateful I was that the American public did not elect Mr. Trump. That’s about all.
The course this thread did not change my perception; that is false. I don’t know why you think that, since nothing I wrote supports it.
And yes, you can predict right now that Trump will get re-elected and then post differently. The difference will be that you won’t be posting a detailed analysis of the situation that will turn out to be right, as I did in the OP.
I don’t know why some people think this thread is about me or about bragging rights or something like that. It isn’t. It never was. There’s nothing in any of my posts to suggest that this thread was created as or exists as a means of self-aggrandizement.
And SlackerInc, I’m not sure why you continue to promote the idea that my prediction was made with a 50% chance of being right. There were at least 10 candidates running at the time I posted the OP; your assertion is false.
Note that my post was in reply to Banquet Bear, who blandly reported that you were “convinced otherwise over the course of a Great Debate”.
I could’ve quibbled with his wording, but – well, technically, it’s true, isn’t it? I mean, he didn’t actually say it was the other debaters who won you over; and as far as I can tell, over the course of the thread you in fact went from flatly making the prediction in the OP to stating that you now expected the opposite.
Well, I could. I mean, I could post details now; and then I’d later mention other details in a follow-up post, when explaining that I no longer expect that to happen. But if it happens after all, I’ll point back to the first post and its details.
You’ll eventually admit that Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose claims are awful.
[ponders]
No; on reflection, you won’t.
[pauses]
Well, unless you will, in which case, I was right.
[thinks]
Should I throw in some details to support each of those claims?
[shrugs]
I mean, one set of details will point in the wrong direction – but so what?
Nice, TOWP. If I were in Bo’s shoes, I might post something like “dammit, I should have stuck to my guns. Oh well.” But that’s about it.
I think Bo gets to crow.
IMHO the earlier prediction and the later prediction were fundamentally different. The first was a prediction was made well in advance and was a prediction as to how the election would subsequently play out. That turned out to be correct.
The second was after events had already happened, and was an acknowledgement that events didn’t seem to have turned out the way he predicted. No shame in acknowledging that the polls show you’re wrong. That prediction was wrong, but it was only wrong because the polls themselves were wrong.His only error there was in not insisting that the polls were wrong based on his theory. OK.
The weird thing is, if it had played out the other way around, I honestly think I would’ve given him the benefit of the doubt. Heck, I don’t even think there would’ve been any doubt!
When I read that later post, I figured he’d come to expect the outcome he was now claiming to, uh, expect – such that, if someone came in to snarkily rake him over the coals for getting it wrong in the OP, I’d have said hey, that’s hardly fair; when new information was brought to his attention, he revised his prediction accordingly and made a point of announcing it; you shouldn’t hold him to what he believed before he learned new stuff and reached a new conclusion; that’s the sort of change that should be noted and even celebrated! Why, it’s what makes us human!
But the point is that the new information was incorrect.
If I predict that it’s going to rain next Wednesday and then Wednesday morning someone falsely reports that there is not a cloud anywhere within 500 miles and I revise my prediction, and then it turns out there were really thunderclouds 10 miles away and it pours, I would think my original prediction is vindicated.
But – as far as I can tell – that’s not what happened.
Bo, as far as I can tell, didn’t revisit his prediction because the polls showed that Trump was headed for a fall; he explicitly revised his expectation because of Trump’s abysmal conduct since that initial prediction, and because of newly-revealed information about Trump’s past abysmal conduct.
But he also tanked in the polls at that time. But as it turned out, not as much as the pollsters thought.
But – did I miss something? – Bo didn’t reference poll numbers when announcing his change in expectation; to the best of my knowledge, Bo was simply factoring in Trump’s actions to get there. I’ll admit that he could’ve just been looking at polls then; but where are you getting that from? Did he mention it? Hint at it? What?
Wasn’t there an early Apple investor who got nervous and asked Jobs and Wozniak to buy him out for a few grand? I feel like I don’t hear a lot of people praising him for being a visionary, ahead of his time for seeing the potential for Apple to grow to be an industry titan. :dubious:
You are correct.
My assumption on seeing posts like Bo’s retraction was that he was just responding to the then-current polls and coming up with justifications for it. But he didn’t say so explicitly, so you’re right.
Of course it does.
In the OP you express a belief Mr Trump would win.
In 246 you reverse your position and exactly change what you wrote in the OP.
LOL.