Why Jeb Bush is Losing

[_Kevin Graham]

Good lord this post gets angry. I suppose you could insist that every candidate will never be president, then gloat in every single instance that you were right with one exception.

Angry? Whenever people accuse me of lying, as fux and ajax just did, I'll respond appropriately.

And no, you have it all wrong EA. This wasn't about me "gloating" for being right. It was a jab back at you for mocking me when you were obviously so wrong. Had you and cinepro not mocked me for sharing my rather innocuous opinion and used it to pounce on my "lack of understanding" of the election system, how polling is done etc (or whatever other backhanded tripe you use to show me I have no business expressing an opinion without scientific proof to back it up) then I never would have commented in this thread to begin with.

[_EAllusion]

And no, you have it all wrong EA. This wasn't about me "gloating" for being right. It was a jab back at you for mocking me when you were obviously so wrong. Had you and cinepro not mocked me for sharing my rather innocuous opinion and used it to pounce on my "lack of understanding" of the election system, how polling is done etc (or whatever other backhanded tripe you use to show me I have no business expressing an opinion without scientific proof to back it up) then I never would have commented in this thread to begin with.

I wasn't obviously wrong. My comments were correct then, but now you've taken it up a notch and not only argue that I was wrong, but that it was obvious.

You honestly can't take a half-step back for a moment and wonder why virtually every single expert on political forecasting, including those you gleefully used to debunk the "unskewed polls" guys in 2012, disagrees with you? If it is so obvious, why wouldn't they know? What do you know that Nate Silver doesn't?

Bush had a lot of factors in his favor that are predictive of election victory to enough of an extent that it would be reasonable to view him as a reasonable contender, if not weak frontrunner. Because you have some intuition that the nation would never elect another Bush, even though GWB remains popular among the Republican primary electorate, doesn't mean that it's so unlikely as to be impossible.

[_The CCC]

If John Ellis "Jeb" Bush is going pull a rabbit out of his hat. He better get a move on.
SEE http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3823.html

[_Kevin Graham]

I wasn't obviously wrong. My comments were correct then, but now you've taken it up a notch and not only argue that I was wrong, but that it was obvious.

Again, you were obviously wrong for mocking me to suggest Bush has no chance to be President. But as I said before, you never handle being wrong gracefully. Even if he were to somehow win the nomination (which I never doubted was possible because I've never underestimated the stupidity of Republican voters) there is no way in hell we as a nation elect another Bush. That has always been my perspective and instead of just letting me voice my view, you had to jump on me for having the audacity to express views that aren't the product of a scientific experiment. Jesus. Do you have some idea how petty this makes you look? Because you sure as hell don't jump all over everyone else for voicing their opinion based on observation, intuition, gut feeling or whatever you want to call it.

You honestly can't take a half-step back for a moment and wonder why virtually every single expert on political forecasting, including those you gleefully used to debunk the "unskewed polls" guys in 2012, disagrees with you?

Go ahead and produce an article from Nate Silver explaining how Jeb Bush could become President. Surely you don't have this October piece in mind: Yeah, Jeb Bush Is Probably Toast Nor could you be referrring to this piece from April: Jeb Bush Has The Cash, But Not The GOP Support
So according to Silver, Bush lacks support and is effectively "toast." Yep, sounds like he disagrees with me completely huh?

If it is so obvious, why wouldn't they know? What do you know that Nate Silver doesn't?

Uh, unless you're just intentionally missing the point, Silver and I obviously agree. Bush is done.

Bush had a lot of factors in his favor that are predictive of election victory to enough of an extent that it would be reasonable to view him as a reasonable contender, if not weak frontrunner. Because you have some intuition that the nation would never elect another Bush, even though GWB remains popular among the Republican primary electorate, doesn't mean that it's so unlikely as to be impossible.

You grill me for not relying strictly on reliable forecasting models when voicing opinions, yet you argued Sanders' lack of endorsements would do him in. Consider that Jeb Bush is mopping the floors with his GOP competition in the endorsement dept. Yet, he's toast.

I also remember months ago I posted an article comparing Sanders to Obama and you jumped all over me for daring to produce such an article. You then ignored all the things they had in common and instead point out their differences, all the while speaking as if I had written the piece myself. You have a tendency to lose your crap on this subject for some weird reason.

[_EAllusion]

Again, you were obviously wrong for mocking me to suggest Bush has no chance to be President.

Uh, you were wrong then and are wrong now about being right then.

Go ahead and produce an article from Nate Silver explaining how Jeb Bush could become President. Surely you don't have this October piece in mind: Yeah, Jeb Bush Is Probably Toast Nor could you be referrring to this piece from April: Jeb Bush Has The Cash, But Not The GOP Support

Heh. You didn't hastily google that or anything. Speaking of obvious, it's pretty obvious you don't follow Nate Silver or actually know what his views are. Nate Silver consistently projected Bush as having the highest odds of any Republican candidate to win during the same time I was explaining to you that he had a chance at winning. What you don't seem to understand is that Silver believed every Republican candidate has a relatively small chance of winning the nomination due to the crowded nature of the field and uncertainty in how all that shakes out. Now that some of it has shaken out, you want to retroactively project confidence on a matter of uncertainty. 538 has had routine updates from its contributors, including Silver, about their odds predictions. If you read those, which you didn't, you would see all had Bush having about as reasonable of a shot as anyone.

Then later, when Silver is trying to do a post-mortem on why Bush's chances have fallen so precipitously, you take his retroactive analysis as the opinion he had in the first place.

So here is a post-debate conversation he had a full month and a half after you wrote your post where he is giving Jeb Bush a rough 25-30% chance at winning the nomination:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/were ... he-debate/

So according to Silver, Bush lacks support and is effectively "toast." Yep, sounds like he disagrees with me completely huh?

Yes. You think that one could reasonably say Bush never had a chance - for example by confidentially asserting that in early August - when Silver obviously felt exactly the opposite.

Uh, unless you're just intentionally missing the point, Silver and I obviously agree.

It's kinda funny how many clearly wrong things you think are "obvious." Keep that up.

You grill me for not relying strictly on reliable forecasting models when voicing opinions, yet you argued Sanders' lack of endorsements would do him in. Consider that Jeb Bush is mopping the floors with his GOP competition in the endorsement dept. Yet, he's toast.

I said a total lack of endorsements to Sanders while Clinton has many is highly predictive of Sanders losing the election, because it is. While Bush has an endorsement lead, the same phenomenon isn't occurring on the Republican side. No one politician is sucking up all the available endorsements. Endorsers are hedging.

You have a tendency to lose your crap on this subject for some weird reason.

Yes, I'm the one writing in all caps, using hyperbolic language, and peppering my posts with emphatic swears. It's me who tends to "lose his crap" on this subject.

[_The CCC]

I wouldn't say the Bush has no chance, but as his poll numbers continue to decline to less than 5%. It doesn't look good for him.

[_Quasimodo]

I wouldn't say the Bush has no chance, but as his poll numbers continue to decline to less than 5%. It doesn't look good for him.

I think his chances against Clinton would be better (still not good), but he is at a point where I'm sure that opportunity can't happen for him. It would take a lot of hanging chads in the primaries to make that happen.

[_The CCC]

I wouldn't say the Bush has no chance, but as his poll numbers continue to decline to less than 5%. It doesn't look good for him.

I think his chances against Clinton would be better (still not good), but he is at a point where I'm sure that opportunity can't happen for him. It would take a lot of hanging chads in the primaries to make that happen.

Or more rigged electronic voting machines.

[_Kevin Graham]

Uh, you were wrong then and are wrong now about being right then.

How was I wrong for saying Bush would never become President? I was obviously right. It is like you have no concept of the possibility that you could be wrong.

Heh. You didn't hastily google that or anything. Speaking of obvious, it's pretty obvious you don't follow Nate Silver or actually know what his views are.

Of course I googled it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked into it. How does that change the fact that he contradicts your claim? I said he wouldn't become President, Silver says he's toast. Even my 11 year old daughter understands this is basically an agreement. Now, we may not agree for the same reasons, but it is an agreement nonetheless. This just goes down as one of the many examples in which you refuse to admit being wrong about even the most trivial of issues. I mean is this hill really worth dying on?

Nate Silver consistently projected Bush as having the highest odds of any Republican candidate to win during the same time I was explaining to you that he had a chance at winning.

Oh, so you're going to try to wriggle your way out of being wrong because Silver didn't always believe Bush was toast? So what you're saying is that Silver was wrong on September 17th, but a month later he was right only after the polls came out. Meanwhile, I was right the whole time.

What you don't seem to understand is that Silver believed every Republican candidate has a relatively small chance of winning the nomination due to the crowded nature of the field and uncertainty in how all that shakes out.

Well from a statistical perspective yes, of course he has a chance to win the Republican nomination. So does anyone else who is running. In the beginning there wasn't a lot of data to go on except for polls and most folks were waiting to see how things developed via debates, endorsements, public speeches, etc. Sometimes it is simply a process of elimination when certain candidates make stupid remarks as Carson and Fiorina have already done. This however has no bearing on my claim that Bush would never become President. I've explained this to you twice now.

I never denied the possibility that Bush could win the nomination because I've never underestimated Republican stupidity. But in order to become President you need more than just the votes from those in your own party. Hence, Bush could never win the Presidency.

Now that some of it has shaken out, you want to retroactively project confidence on a matter of uncertainty.

Actually it is Silver, not I, who has changed his views as things have "shaken out."

538 has had routine updates from its contributors, including Silver, about their odds predictions. If you read those, which you didn't, you would see all had Bush having about as reasonable of a shot as anyone.

To win the Republican nomination, not the Presidency. And they were obviously wrong. Have you even paid attention to the polls lately? Bush is in like fifth place with no sign of recovering. He's toast.

Then later, when Silver is trying to do a post-mortem on why Bush's chances have fallen so precipitously, you take his retroactive analysis as the opinion he had in the first place.

Retroactive analysis? It was a pithy remark that you turned into a never ending debate. Good grief. It wasn't an "analysis" at all. It was an opinion like saying ldsfaqs will never get laid, or bcspace will never vote Democrat. Bush's poll numbers had already dropped significantly during that time so my comment shouldn't have startled anyone who had been paying attention to recent trends anyway.

So here is a post-debate conversation he had a full month and a half after you wrote your post where he is giving Jeb Bush a rough 25-30% chance at winning the nomination

Yes, the nomination. You do understand this isn't the same thing as winning the Presidency. Right?

[_EAllusion]

Yes, the nomination. You do understand this isn't the same thing as winning the Presidency. Right?

Jeb Bush's chance of winning the presidency would improve if he managed to have secured the nomination. He would've gone from, 10-33%, depending on when and how you are looking at his nomination odds to around 50% give or take, which is what virtually any Republican candidate minus Trump will have in the general given what we currently know. He's probably one of the strongest general election candidates the Republicans can field, though with the caveat that there's very little variance between them due to how partisan decision making happens.

Well from a statistical perspective yes, of course he has a chance to win the Republican nomination. So does anyone else who is running.

Jeb Bush had a much larger chance than several of the people running. You are/were basing confidence in his inability to win an election on weak grounds. You have confidence where you should have measured uncertainty.

Retroactive analysis? It was a pithy remark that you turned into a never ending debate.

Kevin, you linked a piece from Nate Silver that looks backwards on the various reasons why Jeb Bush has faltered. You used this to prove that Nate Silver agreed with your stance. The problem is that Nate Silver did not agree with your stance. What he was saying at the end of October, with more information in hand, is different than what he was saying in August when you wrote your post. It's also different than what he was saying in mid-September in the link I offered. You argued that Silver agreed with you when he plainly didn't. I can't think of any credible forecaster who did. It would be very unreasonable to argue, as you did, that Bush had no shot from the perspective of what is known in August.

Even my 11 year old daughter understands this is basically an agreement.

I wouldn't insult your 11 year old daughter like that. She might have better reading comprehension if you give her a chance. You weren't basically in agreement. Silver believed that Jeb Bush had nearly 1/3rd of the total odds of winning the Republican nomination. While you were saying he had no shot Silver was describing him as a weak frontrunner. If you told Nate Silver not that long ago that Bush had virtually no shot at winning the nomination, he'd say that wasn't true. The fact that Bush has fallen back and he'd now agree that his odds are much, much lower than they were before isn't agreeing with your assertion, in August, that he had no shot. He hasn't see the error of his ways. He, like all of us, is just in possession of more information.

It's like you insisted that a roulette wheel absolutely had to land on black because the last 5 spins were red. We tried to explain to you that's not how odds work. After it landed on black and we agreed that it's black and, because of how physics works, was always going to be black, you insist that we all agree with you now. This, quite literally, is the quality of reasoning on display here.

I remember how much mocking you did of people who didn't understand election forecasting and polls in 2012 when partisan Republicans, desperate to believe Romney was doing better than he was, made misleading claims. In your defense you marshalled the expertise of political forecasters like Silver. You were kind of a dick about it, but hey, you were right. But that wasn't born of your trust in political forecasting or the social science that lies underneath it. It was simply because you had the opposite partisan desire and they were temporarily convenient to argue your point. This is made manifest when you say highly dubious things (even more dubious than the Romney boosters, in fact), and you do so in contradiction to the very expertise you relied on at that time.