Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[tantric superman 4667]

The is a 96% probability that

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Will Never Be President.

[Cacti 191]

6 hours ago, ndawg said:

I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate.

Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit.

I know I’m going to regret asking but maybe I’ll learn something about probability. If a 98% chance of winning was “bullshit” but a 75% chance was "accurate" (not bullshit), then at what % between the two did the transition occur?

[tantric superman 4667]

I'm not a probability guy but if I flip a coin the probability is 50% heads.

The outcome doesn't render the initial probably wrong or reflect the idea that the probability should have been somewhere between 50-100%.

 

[Orca of Peace 109]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

The is a 96% probability that

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Will Never Be President.

a high energy, good looking, articulate albeit raw - she'll be in that seat for many years since it's the Bronx NY (will never be Republican). Only open question is whether she'll become Senator one day ala HRC

Edited August 12, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[ndawg 1242]

1 hour ago, Cacti said:

I know I’m going to regret asking but maybe I’ll learn something about probability. If a 98% chance of winning was “bullshit” but a 75% chance was "accurate" (not bullshit), then at what % between the two did the transition occur?

Remember that we're only evaluating the models against one single prediction (the election itself). Because we now know that the election was very close, we also know that either candidate probably had a reasonably strong chance at winning. That means that for the 98% model to be accurate, voter turnout on election day would have had to have been an astoundingly improbable statistical aberration -- as in, likely tens or hundreds of thousands of voters would have had to have behaved differently than the data would have suggested. On the other hand, the prediction of a 75% chance of victory is also a prediction of a fairly close race. So, 538's model was more consistent with the results, by far.

As far as when that transition would occur, I'm not sure that can be known. We'd need to be training these statistical models against far more predictions. My only point here is that not all the predictions were off base, and the talking point that all the predictions were wrong is a lie. 538 didn't predict that Hillary would win, they predicted she had a 75% chance at winning.

Edited August 12, 2018 by ndawg

[bad_teammate 13125]

To go back to Ben Shapiro the disgusting, pathetic midget...

If his intention is to have a discussion or debate with AOC, why not contact her directly? Why not contact her campaign discreetly? He chose a public call-out specifically because it would target harassment towards AOC when his bad-faith offer was made. He offered a billionaire's dollars to a woman for her attention, knowing she would refuse, and did so in a way that ensured that a lot of men would then start screaming at the woman who would inevitably reject him.

There's levels to how pathetic Shapiro is. Deep levels.

[RayDog 682]

7 hours ago, Js1 said:

She whiffed pretty badly last week too in Kansas and Michigan. One of her candidates got through in Wa but 2nd Place in all Dem November race and the incumbent got 48%

If you look at the 13 progressive Democrats on ballots last Tuesday 7 won and 6 lost, which is not bad overall.  The KS3 race was the biggest surprise, but the race was swung by $600,000 in Emily's list money. The MI governor candidate was never close in polling so it was not a surprise.

[bad_teammate 13125]

"Democratic Socialists didn't win all their races 2 seconds after being somewhat known. There is no future in it. Time to sell out to oil companies!" - DNC

[bad_teammate 13125]

If you have no frame of reference for Ben Shapiro (or Jordan Peterson), here's some awesome shit for you.

 

[Js1 85055]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

"Democratic Socialists didn't win all their races 2 seconds after being somewhat known. There is no future in it. Time to sell out to oil companies!" - DNC

Stop posting Tom Perez’s Emails! 

[this 107]

On 8/11/2018 at 6:19 PM, Js1 said:

Also Onboard, Slorch, incredulity, this, and the rest of Surly’s Gray Old Pussies

Oh I get it, I don't see you speaking up against African American slavery in this thread so you must be pro slavery. 

No wonder you can't see through the bullshit(and really really really bad math) in AOC's policies. 

Dumbass.

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If you have no frame of reference for Ben Shapiro (or Jordan Peterson), here's some awesome shit for you.

 

Jordan's all, like, "I need to get some  gold right after this."

Ben's been punched many times, hasn't he?

[bad_teammate 13125]

lol Jordan Peterson in the past talking about his future self

 

[blackmarketbaby 118]

 Isn't this thread about some bartender from the bronx?

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

No it’s about the prediction skills of Weathermen. 

When he says there is a 75% chance of rain but there is not a cloud in the skey, fear not!  As he was still correct by telling you there was a 25% chance of no rain. 

Nailed it. 

[this 107]

Even Wapo thinks she is either dumb(more likely) or a liar, and they back it up with actual facts:

Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s media blitz

 

 

 

VoteVets tweeted a very precise number for the cost of Trump's golf outings. But the numbers don't really add up. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

By Glenn KesslerAugust 10Email the author

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-year-old self-described “democratic socialist” who unexpectedly toppled a top Democratic incumbent in the primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District, is a sudden media star even though she has not been elected to Congress. (She has no real competition in the general election.)

With celebrity comes scrutiny. Ocasio-Cortez has come under fire for dismissing concerns about the anticipated costs of her proposals and offering too-glib answers.

For instance, in an appearance on CNN on Monday, when challenged on the costs of government-financed health care, she answered: “Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system.”

Huh?

Several readers have asked us to vet some of her claims and, because of summer vacation schedules, we’ve been a bit slower to follow up than our fact-checking colleagues. So here’s a quick roundup of some of her recent eyebrow-raising claims, though to be fair to Ocasio-Cortez, the average member of Congress might easily make many bloopers over the course of so many live interviews.

As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios in roundups. But we will be watching Ocasio-Cortez closely as she continues her media blitz. A spokesman for her campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

“Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.”
— interview on PBS’s “Firing Line,” July 13, 2018

This is an example of sweeping language — “everyone has two jobs” — that can get a rookie politician in trouble. She may personally know people who have two jobs, but the data is pretty clear that this statement is poppycock.

First of all, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the percentage of people working two jobs has actually declined since the Great Recession — and been relatively steady at around 5 percent since 2010. The percentage bounced around a bit but it was as low as 4.7 percent in October 2017 and was 5.2 percent in the July jobs report, the most recent available. That hardly adds up to “everyone.”

“After reaching a peak of 6.2 percent during 1995-96, the multiple job-holding rate began to recede,” the BLS noted in a report. “By the mid-2000s, the rate had declined to 5.2 percent and remained close to that level from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, the multiple job-holding rate decreased to 4.9 percent and has remained at 4.9 percent or 5.0 percent from 2010 to 2017.”

The July data shows most of these people juggling two jobs — 58 percent — have a primary job and a part-time job. Only 6 percent have two full-time jobs, which calls into question her claim that people are working “60, 70, 80 hours a week.” Indeed, the average hours worked per week for private employees has remained steady at just under 35 hours for years.

“ICE is the only criminal investigative agency, the only enforcement agency in the United States, that has a bed quota. So ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night and that number has only been increasing since 2009.”
— in an interview with the Intercepted podcast, May 30

As our friends at PolitiFact documented, this is an urban legend. There is language in the 2016 appropriations bill that requires ICE to have 34,000 beds available — ICE “shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through September 30, 2016” — but it is not required to fill them. The main point of such language, a version of which dated to 2009, is to make sure the money is not spent on something else.

In 2014, in an exchange with Republican lawmakers, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified that he did not view it as a mandate to fill the beds. “That’s beds, not people,” Johnson said.

In any case, the language was eliminated in the 2017 and 2018 appropriations bills. So it’s not even an issue anymore.

“They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper-middle class is probably more moderate but that upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America.”
— interview on “Pod Save America,” Aug. 7

Here’s some more sweeping rhetoric. In knocking the current leaders of the Democrats, stuck in “ ’90s politics,” Ocasio-Cortez said the “upper-middle class does not exist anymore.”

But the data show that while the middle class overall may have shrunk a bit, the upper-middle class has actually grown. In a 2016 paperpublished by the Urban Institute, Stephen J. Rose documented that the upper-middle class has grown substantially, from 12.9 percent of the population in 1979 to 29.4 percent in 2014. His analysis showed that there was a massive shift in the center of gravity of the economy, with an increasing share of income going to the upper-middle class and rich.

“In 1979, the middle class controlled a bit more than 46 percent of all incomes, and the upper-middle class and rich controlled 30 percent,” Rose wrote. “In contrast, in 2014 the rich and upper-middle class controlled 63 percent of all incomes (52 percent for the upper-middle class and 11 percent for the rich); the middle class share had shrunk to 26 percent; and the shares of the lower-middle class, poor, and near-poor had declined by half.”

“In a Koch brothers-funded study — if any study’s going to try to be a little bit slanted, it would be one funded by the Koch brothers — it shows that Medicare for all is actually much more, is actually much cheaper than the current system that we pay right now.”
— interview on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” Aug. 8

We recently gave this sort of claim Three Pinocchios. Some Democrats have seized on a reference in a study released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, which receives some funding from the Koch Foundation, that a Medicare-for-all plan advanced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would reduce the country’s overall level of health expenditures by $2 trillion from 2022 to 2031. That’s because the Sanders plan would slash payments to providers by 40 percent.

But the study makes clear that this is an unrealistic assumption and in fact the plan would raise government expenditures by $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Without the provider cuts, the additional federal budget cost would be nearly $40 trillion. So, no matter how you slice it, the study does not say it would be “much cheaper” than the current system.

“The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that everyday American make is a tax. And so, while it may not seem like we pay that tax on April 15th, we pay it every single month or we do pay at tax season if we don’t buy, you know, these plans off of the exchange.”
— interview on CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time,” Aug. 8

This appears to be an example of not understanding policy nuances.

In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Affordable Care Act was deemed to be an appropriate exercise of the government’s taxing power. But Roberts was not referring to the monthly premium payments, as Ocasio-Cortez claims. Instead, Roberts was referring to the individual mandate to buy insurance — and the requirement to pay an annual penalty when filing a tax return if one did not buy health insurance.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Ironically, the Obama administration had passed the law insisting the mandate was not a tax.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trump’s promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Share The Facts

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/?utm_term=.e0567cf5cf1a

[David Dennison 18603]

Love the laser focus on a first term back bencher from Queens.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Love the laser focus on a first term back bencher from Queens.

Yep, shoot that messenger..........  The democrats are trying to hang their collective hats on this spirited yet uninformed newcomer.  Id say a laser focus on someone coming out of the blue like that is pretty de rigor for journalists.

[this 107]

42 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Love the laser focus on a first term back bencher from Queens.

That's what you focus on? Not on the fact that a left leaning newspaper fact checks her and she fails completely? Something that (at least I) have been trying to point out since page 1? 

This is the problem with left or right leaning drones. Their "leaders" will spout off some nonsense or a blatant unrealistic lie and they'll not only go along with it but defend it to death. 

[David Dennison 18603]

49 minutes ago, this said:

That's what you focus on? Not on the fact that a left leaning newspaper fact checks her and she fails completely? Something that (at least I) have been trying to point out since page 1? 

This is the problem with left or right leaning drones. Their "leaders" will spout off some nonsense or a blatant unrealistic lie and they'll not only go along with it but defend it to death. 

I don't care what she says. She's going to be a back bencher representing a district 1,500 miles away.

I'm amused by how much she triggers the right. That's hilarious to me. She's a nobody on the hill.

Edited August 13, 2018 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The democrats are trying to hang their collective hats on this spirited yet uninformed newcomer.  Id say a laser focus on someone coming out of the blue like that is pretty de rigor for journalists.

No they aren't. Republicans are doing that.

[this 107]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I don't care what she says. She's going to be a back bencher representing a district 1,500 miles away.

I'm amused by how much she triggers the right. That's hilarious to me. She's a nobody on the hill.

And yet we have a thread on her and not on others. 

Is that your back pedaling? 

[David Dennison 18603]

 

28 minutes ago, this said:

And yet we have a thread on her and not on others. 

Is that your back pedaling? 

No.

[this 107]

50 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

So, when you can no longer make any rational defense of the politician, you fall back on the old “I am just in it for conservitard tears” position?   This seems familiar.

Trumpkins and Bernie Bros deserve each other.

Its time Bernie bros get a MAGA hat on, just blue in color. 

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

So, when you can no longer make any rational defense of the politician, you fall back on the old “I am just in it for conservitard tears” position?   This seems familiar.

Trumpkins and Bernie Bros deserve each other.

I support any politician that pulls the Democratic Party to the left. I'd vote for Ocasio-Cortez if I could.

 

[wildcat09 29187]

1 hour ago, this said:

And yet we have a thread on her and not on others. 

Is that your back pedaling? 

and like 90% of the posts in here are by Republicans, and another few are bad teammate making fun of right wing grifters.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Conservatives, "We did a fact check on AOC and she was wrong about some things."

Also Conservatives, "Donald J. Trump is the leader of our party."

lol

[this 107]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Conservatives, "We did a fact check on AOC and she was wrong about some things."

Also Conservatives, "Donald J. Trump is the leader of our party."

lol

Americans, "Hey Trump is lying, Wapo fact checked him. Half the shit he spouts is an absolute lie"

Trumpkins, "hurr durr MAGA, MAGA, MAGAAAAAA!! But Obama."

Americans, "Hey AOC is lying, what she says makes no sense. A week later Wapo confirmed that she's just talking out of her ass or blatantly lying"

Bernie bros, "hurr durr, but Trump lol"

WTF?

Edited August 13, 2018 by this

[David Dennison 18603]

51 minutes ago, this said:

Americans, "Hey Trump is lying, Wapo fact checked him. Half the shit he spouts is an absolute lie"

Trumpkins, "hurr durr MAGA, MAGA, MAGAAAAAA!! But Obama."

Americans, "Hey AOC is lying, what she says makes no sense. A week later Wapo confirmed that she's just talking out of her ass or blatantly lying"

Bernie bros, "hurr durr, but Trump lol"

WTF?

Who did you vote for for president?

[Bojack 2073]

I'm betting on Gary Johnson. 

[this 107]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who did you vote for for president?

Hilary. And only because I fucking loathe Trump. But why does it even matter? 

Why can't we just call spade a spade? Trump lies, call him a liar. AOC lies or in this case spouts shit out of her ass(if you think she isn't lying), call her the fuck out.

Why do we as Americans allow our politicians to get away with blatant unrealistic/untrue statements and even worse, defend them when we know they are wrong?

[this 107]

19 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I'm betting on Gary Johnson. 

He was more coherent and more realistic than AOC. 

Go figure. 

[David Dennison 18603]

18 minutes ago, this said:

Hilary. And only because I fucking loathe Trump. But why does it even matter? 

Why can't we just call spade a spade? Trump lies, call him a liar. AOC lies or in this case spouts shit out of her ass(if you think she isn't lying), call her the fuck out.

Why do we as Americans allow our politicians to get away with blatant unrealistic/untrue statements and even worse, defend them when we know they are wrong?

I don't give a shit as long as she votes the way leadership tells her to vote.

[this 107]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't give a shit as long as she votes the way leadership tells her to vote.

Then you understand why Trumpkins/republicans stick to the party line regardless of what he says. 

[David Dennison 18603]

24 minutes ago, this said:

Then you understand why Trumpkins/republicans stick to the party line regardless of what he says. 

Of course I do. That's politics. Their policy positions are abhorrent.

[this 107]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course I do. That's politics. Their policy positions are abhorrent.

So are yours. 

[David Dennison 18603]

18 minutes ago, this said:

So are yours. 

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

 

[this 107]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

 

Its ok, English doesn't have to be everyone's first language. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Trump openly lies at every waking breath and his politics are racist and terrible.

AOC is young and naively/hyperbolically states her point at times and her politics are open and great.

bbbbbb BOTH SIDES

[Buzzrock 14867]

My idiot is better than your idiot!

[David Dennison 18603]

20 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

My idiot is better than your idiot!

Yeah, but one idiot convinced 60 million idiots to vote for him.

The other idiot is contained.

Edited August 14, 2018 by David Dennison

[Buzzrock 14867]

I was talking about you and bt.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but one idiot convinced 60 million idiots to vote for him.

The other idiot is contained.

He didn't have to convince too hard. His opponent was Hillary after all.

[David Dennison 18603]

18 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He didn't have to convince too hard. His opponent was Hillary after all.

She won't be again.

Which is why he'll be a one term president.

[bad_teammate 13125]

28 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

My idiot is better than your idiot!

She's 28 and not an idiot. She's a normal person who says normal shit, sometimes hyperbolically. There is no rational equivalence between her and Donald Trump.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She won't be again.

Which is why he'll be a one term president.

He did his job......

[David Dennison 18603]

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He did his job......

The Democrats and Madam Speaker thank him for it.

[Chuckie Finster 22583]

Hilary. And only because I fucking loathe Trump. But why does it even matter? 

Why can't we just call spade a spade? Trump lies, call him a liar. AOC lies or in this case spouts shit out of her ass(if you think she isn't lying), call her the fuck out.

Why do we as Americans allow our politicians to get away with blatant unrealistic/untrue statements and even worse, defend them when we know they are wrong?

Why do some Americans join a Texas Longhorns message board to make 100 posts in the span of 2 weeks solely in the politics board, 80+% of which are discussing a 28 year old member-to-be of Congress from NYC?

[this 107]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Why do some Americans join a Texas Longhorns message board to make 100 posts in the span of 2 weeks solely in the politics board, 80+% of which are discussing a 28 year old member-to-be of Congress from NYC?

I know facts can be mean, especially when they don't agree with you. 

[RayDog 682]

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

He did his job......

I agree. He handed the presidency to the Democrats for at least the next 20 years, and give them the opportunity to fix everything Russublicans broke.