COMPLETE COLLAPSE–> Nate Silver: No One Should be Surprised if Democrats Only Pick Up 19 Seats and F

Judging by the female vote turnout and the way that females split for democrats?

Pretty good.

 

No, Te, I'm not going on THIS 'snipe-hunt' for you. I suggest that if you are really interested in Krugman's incessant, predictable rants about the need to cut Social Security, then YOU pore through his numerous 'droppings' on the subject.

Oh, hell, I'll give you something to start with: From link: https://mises.org/library/social-security-ponzi-scheme

Social Security's "Ponzi Game Aspects"

Paul Krugman is a famous guy with a long record of strong opinions. It's to be expected that periodically these will come back to bite him. His usual tack is to deny that his old columns meant what their plain-word reading would indicate. For example, Krugman can't believe anybody thought this column (from 2002) should be construed as his endorsement of Greenspan trying to create a housing bubble.

When it comes to Social Security, here's what Krugman wrote in late 1996:

Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).

As with his unfortunate housing-bubble article, here too Krugman has had to do damage control. After the above column floated around the Internet, Krugman tried to quell the giggling, claiming that anyone who tried to use him in support of Republican claims was playing "word games." Krugman then gave a link to this fascinating history of the original Ponzi scheme, courtesy of — the Social Security Administration! (It seems they must get this a lot.)

Krugman and Samuelson both stoke these fires, evidently propped-up by some faction of insider "men-behind-the-curtain" who are trying to prepare people who have worked all their lives and EARNED Social Security benefits for a real good screwing. It will probably happen shortly after they engineer the next big, devastating "downturn"... probably in less than five years.

Hint: As I've been saying for years, Te, the Federal Reserve central bank "rescued" those it thought "too big to fail" by creating an enormous 'fraud-balloon' after the so-called "Great Recession"... and this new balloon, like the one it replaced, also will *POP*! Have a lovely weekend....

 

Well, since you don't work in the United States, I assume your question was an 'academic' one?

Then, I hope my little distillation was of some use. If not, you can always go to the Social Security website and find out all you could possibly want to know....

 

Interestingly, your chart (which I do not dispute the accuracy of), brings to mind observations about B. F. Skinner's 'rat-boxes'. Remember what happens in them as the rat society become unstable?

Before the 'sh*t hits the fan' in the 'rat-box', the FEMALE rats go completely nuts in a senseless state of frenzy. The dominant males take defensive positions and fight off the ensuing chaos and insanity, but the savage, murderous mayhem builds and continues among the adult and adolescent rats of both sexes until nearly all the rats EXCEPT for the more-dominant male rats are all dead!

And Skinner made these observations DECADES ago. Fascinating! But evidently here we are, many years later, having learned nothing....

 

Do you feel stupid now?

 

This post reaffirms my decision to ignore you.

 

And your vapid rejoinder reaffirms my opinion that most of your mental 'droppings' consist of NOTHING....

Whether you agree or disagree with someone, at the very least you should be able to produce some sort of countervailing viewpoint. But, once again, you had NOTHING to say. Zero minus zero is zero....

 

Clearly it was an issue with data overload/system error!

 

Every Democrat Senator that voted against Kavanaugh that was in a red district lost. The Democrats should have also won seats in the Senate. When was the last time that an opposing party didn't win the Senate along with the house?

Republicans make history by growing Senate majority while losing House
"It was the first time since the nation started directly electing senators in 1914 that a party has won control of the House without gaining seats in the Senate. The gains are significant because a larger Republican plurality will make it easier for Trump to have cabinet and judicial nominees approved."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ction-day-2018-republicans-senate/1848366002/

 

Look at my other post. You are talking apples and oranges. Women always vote heavier for Democrats than Republicans.

 

Correct.

It was. Thank you.

 

Disingenuous abuse of what Krugman actually wrote duly noted.

Here is what Krugman actually MEANT.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/the-ponzi-thing/

The last part is absolutely 100% accurate that NO ONE on the extreme far right will ever concede that they are disingenuously taking what Krugman actually wrote OUT OF CONTEXT!

And the EVIDENCE that Krugman is 100% accurate in that prediction is right there is your regurgitation of the out-of-context fallacy, Cy!

This OP topic is based entirely upon the extremist far right taking Nate Silver OUT OF CONTEXT so to have the same thing happen to Krugman is just SOP for those who engage in this kind of nefarious and disingenuous disinformation distribution.

It is so boringly predictable and effectively DOWNGRADES the CREDIBILITY of those who wallow in it because they are too lazy to ever fact check anything that allegedly "supports" their Confirmation Bias.

The best Rule of Thumb is if it sounds too good to be true then fact check it because it it probably partisan disinformation. Buying into it only to subsequently discover that you have been DUPED is no way to maintain credibility. And FAILURE to admit to being duped effectively wipes out credibility.

Without credibility all that is left is a partisan opinion that carries no weight whatsoever.

 

Please provide the parallels between what destabilized the rat society and our current situation because having women move to the left was never something that I recall in Skinner's experiments.

The chart provided by @MrTLegal is a confirmation of the consistency of voting outcomes based upon Gender. When men vote in either equal or greater numbers than women then Republicans prevail in elections but when women outvote men then Dems prevail. That pattern is consistent in every election.

 

The Dems did lose those 3 seats in RED states but they held their seats in RED states like Montana and West Virginia.

Furthermore the Dems FLIPPED a Senate seat in Nevada and look likely to do so in AZ too.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/09/sinema-mcsally-arizona-senate-race-982562

On top of that there is a recount in the FL Senate race.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/08/florida-senate-elections-scott-nelson-2018-recount-975805

 

Did the Dems flip the Senate?

 

Try commenting on what I ACTUALLY POSTED rather than on your own agenda.

 

WRONG. The nation is sick of Trump’s puerile behavior and all-around ignorance of the world.

WRONG. Best case now is that Trump limps his pathetic way through the remaining two years of the worst presidential term in U.S. history. Most Americans hope dignity is restored to the office well before then.

WRONG. The only ones acting insane are the nimrods still whining about election fraud because they can’t handle getting politically bitch-slapped.

WRONG. Maybe you are confusing a “red wave” with a RED TIDE. The suffocating toxicity of the New Republican Party must be cleaned up.

Sorry your little circle-jerk here was interrupted by the AMERICAN VOTERS on Tuesday, LOL!

 

"Operant Conditioning", as explored by B. F. Skinner, did not comment on whether any of the "box" results were indicative of human political preferences -- rather, they were environmental. TLegal's chart reminded me of the female rat behaviors that Skinner recorded, if only because the primary mechanism used in "Operant Conditioning" was the dispensing of food for a certain kind of behavior.

With the growing 21st-Century ubiquity of the national Welfare State, the population has generally undergone a conditioning which encourages the adoption of certain political allegiances (thus, votes) in return for unearned income/subsistence welfare handouts from the government. The role is an easy one to envision -- the 'rats' are the general population, and the Skinner character is the government.

The part of my musing you will disagree with even more heatedly is my assumption that female humans, like Skinner's rats, are biologically and physiologically predisposed to seek (with considerable agitation and anxiety) both 'provender' and protection in our society (ostensibly to better enable offspring-production), the provision of which is supposed to be guaranteed (biologically and physiologically) by the dominant males.

This is all the more likely where, as it was in Skinner's rat-boxes, the rat population is allowed to skyrocket, but the amount of food and living space does not increase commensurately.... Aside: the population of the world one hundred years ago was ~2 billion. The population of the world today is ~7.6 billion....

But in our society, the dominant males have, in essence, FAILED. Today's breeding-age, wanna-be 'dominant males' guarantee today's breeding-age females less and less -- really, almost nothing. This situation is highly distressing to the females who sense it instinctively, and so they seek a surrogate protector/provider in -- you guessed it -- THE GOVERNMENT! Which, of course, takes us to the observation (no doubt quite valid) that the females adhere themselves increasingly to the Democrat Party -- well known for its 'socialism-lite' viewpoint toward taking money from working taxpayers and giving it out in various forms of welfare and "subsidies" to those who can be depended upon to vote for them. "Government" supplants the "dominant male"....

See? That wasn't so hard to comprehend... was it...? Really it boils down to this: females are biologically oriented toward the production and nurturing of offspring. Males are biologically oriented toward achieving dominance and superiority in their peer-group so that they can project their genes in the population in the form of offspring as successfully as possible. This concept worked well all during the rise of humanity until human societies started becoming destabilized, largely because of overpopulation and the resultant competitive anxiety over resources necessary for survival and prosperity. Now, everything is f*cked up, and it will become increasingly so until we have some kind of massive human "die-off" -- more or less comparable to the rat "die-off" (kill-off) the rats experienced in B. F. Skinner's experiments....

Today it's actually gotten so bad that many among us openly question what their own gender actually is.... How much longer can it be before this whole damn thing blows up in our faces...?

 

There is a difference in ' right's ' and agendas that are "wrong's ".

 

Nate Silver has an opinion, and he expressed it. Those who wish to subscribe to his line of thought are free to do so. Krugman, Robert Samuelson, and other shills for the partial/total confiscation of EARNED entitlements, have their opinion also -- seen FREQUENTLY nearly every time they write about anything.

Why would I make this up, Te? If I hadn't already read so much of this confiscation-advocacy crap from both of them, it would never have occurred to me that either of them had written it.

Now, I'll stop there or else it is very possible that, as we have seen before when you and I spar, a moderator will swoop in and delete all our posts for being 'off-topic'. We wouldn't want that to happen again, would we....

 

Its not taking anything out of context.. Its reading his work and responding.. Much later he comes back and comes up with excuses.. Like in your example he was "being cute"

 

All I can say is that I hope you did not do yourself any serious injury with those over reaches and stretches beyond all reason.

Dystopian ASSUMPTIONS make for entertainment, not reality.

Where your entire conjecture collapses into absurdity is because it relies upon the FICTIONAL boogyman that those on the extreme right call "THE GOVERNMENT"!!!!!

Compare that to REALITY where We the People have formed a government OF the People and FOR the People.

What we saw on Tuesday was We the People TAKING BACK our government at ALL levels. More than THREE HUNDRED seats were flipped primarily by PROGRESSIVES with the MESSAGE that We the People need to reassume control over OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!

Perhaps the most STARK EXAMPLES were in deep red Kansas electing a Dem female governor and one of the first two native American females to Congress who is also LBGTQ in complete and utter REPUDIATION to the deplorable Republican/Libertarian malfeasance of the Koch brothers lickspittle Brownback and his nefarious tax and policy failures.

Your ludicrous mental gymnastics FAIL because they are based upon FICTION rather than REALITY.

 

Your tacit concession to being wrong about Krugman is accepted. Enjoy your weekend.

 

Dems picked up 30 House seats.

15 governorships.