HappyGilmore's comments

« First    « Previous    Comments 725 - 764 of 764    Last »

  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 31, 7:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
No you are missing boorish critique. You suggest it is hypocrisy to agree w nate on some predictions and not agree on others. This is as illogical as an observation gets.


It is hypocrisy. Nate isn't offering his opinion, he has created a model to analyze many factors (including polling) to offer predictions in the form of probabilities.

Someone who touts the model when it says what they want it to say but then calls the model nonsense when it says the opposite of what they want is absolutely hypocrisy.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 31, 7:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
The government backing allows too much easy money which is what drives up prices. Without government backing, the irresponsible borrowers would not be able to bid up prices. The only people in the market would be people who saved up the down payment and then the houses would be affordable enough to buy with a 10 -15 year loan.


All that would do is create more landlords and higher rents. That would increase inequality and hurt the middle class. Housing prices would not fall much because anybody who is no longer a buyer becomes a renter and drives up the rental cost. This means investors can and will pay more for housing.

HeadSet says
Easy money always drives up prices


My beef is that government backed mortgages are "easy" money. I don't see that at all.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 31, 7:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Like I said, NS is irrelevant more so than just being wrong.


lol--538 is the gold standard of political analysis.

There really isn't anything else close.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 4:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
he government backing frees banks to lend to people who would otherwise be considered too risky. That is, a bank would normally want a down payment and a home worth sufficient collateral before making a loan. With the government taking the risk of default, the banks can throw money around to non-savers and reckless buyers. Have you forgotten the price run ups in 2003-2008 caused by anyone who could fog a mirror getting a loan?


That's nonsensical. Banks loan out money as an investment and only do so when their analysis shows it will meet an ROI and generate profits. They will not make unprofitable loans just because they have additional money.

The bubble was caused by poor understanding of risk and outright fraud.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 4:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Similarly, the price of a house should be approximately the annual rent (minus upkeep, etc) divided by the current interest rate. If the house brings in $10,000/year in profit, and the current interest rate is 5%, then the house is worth $200,000. At that price, it's the about the same to rent or to buy.


You're leaving out the biggest value of owning which is as a hedge against inflation. Over longer periods, that becomes enormous value. Which is why you must use most sophisticated calculators to analyze rent vs. buy rather than the simple calculation listed above.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 4:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
And when he lost, crowing about how the Democrats upped their vote total ---- in an open seat, with tons of positive media coverage of Ossof, and the most spent on any Congressional Race in US History.


lol--it's a Republican +12 district!

Does more money change the demographics of the district?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 5:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
NS purpose is to give info that certain people want to hear, specifically fund raisers. Much easier to raise campaign funds for a likely winner than to raise campaign funds for a likely loser. Also, easier to get donations in general for the likely winner since many donors want to be investing in the winning side. Tell them what they want to hear all along, then claim the "probability" and "margin of error" excuses when outright wrong.


lol--so does 538 predicting Republican 85% likely to win Senate fit that narrative?

Why do Trump supporters hate facts and data?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Anybody remember Handel is Georgia's 6th? And all the money and time Hollywood, the Media, and Big Tech was dumped into it?

"Neck and Neck" pollsters crowed. Some gave had Handel down by 10pts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/20/new-forecast-only-a-55-chance-that-jon-ossoff-wins-georgias-house-special-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c73d2103783

Hell some said Ossoff wasn't even going to have to go to runoff elections, getting more than 50% in the first round.

Handel won by 3.5 pts.


I remember. Nobody had Handel down 10 points. Handel was pretty much always ahead in the polling and was expected to narrowly win. All the money spent there actually hurt Ossof because it increased Republican turnout. And it's tough to win a Republican +12 district when folks turn out.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 1, 5:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@Patrick @twoscoopsofspaceforce

OK. Goran has become a large enough troll that it's no longer fun to come here. So I guess he wins.

If this is what you want the site to be, have at it.

Take a look at the blue wave thread and tell me I'm wrong. Iwog was right all along that having him as a moderator will kill the site. I stayed much longer than I should have...
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 7:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
For posterity:





So, let's recap. As I tried to tell all of you, Nate was almost perfect. Dems are expected to win 38 seats when all is said and done and votes are done counting in CA.

The RCP polling average is going to be pretty damn close as well with Dems +7 or +7.5

My favorite--GA6 went to Dems this go around. Just needed a better candidate than Ossoff.

And as I tried to tell McGee--Republicans have lost suburban soccer Moms for a long time. Dems consistently won all types of suburban districts.

Typically, the party out of power wins in the midterms because the other party doesn't show up to vote. in 2018, Trump got his base out and they voted. But he has alienated so many former Republicans that they still lost. So there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2020.

OK-had to come back to gloat. Happy out.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 1:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
The big news is that the wealthy voted Democrat.


False. Educated voted Democrat. There wasn't much correlation between income and voting Dem or Rep.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
It sure looks like the deciding factor in the Senate was the Kavanaugh vote, which mitigates the Suburban White Woman theory.


False again. The issue was the Dem senators were running in extremely Republican states. They overperformed, but Trump was successful in getting out the base in Indiana, Missouri, N. Dakota, etc.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

But, it's really no biggie, the House was on par with a typical midterm election


False yet again. Typically midterms help the party out of power because they are the only voters that turn out. In this case, Trump got his base out. Like I said, the problem was unique to this year in that he alienated so many former Republicans that he lost anyway. And if Dems +7.5 isn't a wave, then what is a wave?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Also, the strategy was to pump the Senate Races, but not so much the House races. Looks like this was misguided.


And false again. Dems had a very strong strategy for the House. They recruited good candidates everywhere. They supported them everywhere. They ran on healthcare. It worked.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

And, the Democrats outspent the Republicans again. They were able to do so, despite being almost bust after 2016, because the Wealthy lavished them with donations.


lol--they have a HUGE network of small donors that they depended on. They won because of soccer Moms throughout suburbia--donating and voting for Democrats.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 4:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
That's funny, Pew just released a report whether you went to an SJW indoctrination Camp did matter, especially if your Gulag major was a non-STEM, SJW-bullshit infused Social Science/Lib Arts program that Women have in greater proportion to males:


So you're agreeing that I'm correct again. Level of education matters. Income doesn't.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Scott is in an excessively Red State?


Are you assuming Scott won? Even if he does eke out a win, it's only because the Broward ballot design was so idiotic.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 4:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

It was a typical midterm election -- In the House. The opposition picked up 30ish seats.


Number of seats won is actually a pretty poor measure. It depends so highly on how many seats the party had before the election. Better measure is vote %. And by that measure, it's right in line with the "wave" elections of the past.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says


They spent a fortune. Your GA-06 flip probably is nearing $100M in costs.


Make up your mind. I thought they were focused on the Senate??
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 4:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Nope. It's not a wave. It's simply an off year election. 30ish votes being typical. 60 is a wave election, like the Republicans in 2010.

And the pickups in the Senate confirm that.


Like I said--only if one purposely looks at the wrong measure. And it's really 40ish votes, not 30ish.

The only reason Reps got 60 was because they had so few to begin with.


TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Yes, Trump was focused on the Senate. .Figured the House would be dragged along. Didn't work - and nobody really knows why we had two opposite results.

Dems weren't, they were looking for the House. So I stand by the approaching $100M for GA-06, and the win was paper thin and will be easily overturned in 2020.


Trump was focused on the Senate because none of the House members wanted him to come. He was toxic. The Senate seats were all in deep red states that Republicans should be winning all day every day. The fact that they lost Nevada, are going to lose AZ, almost lost TX, lost WV, Montana, is more of an indictment than a success.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 4:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Maybe those House Members made a mistake.

Again, Florida isn't a Deep Red State


And Scott should have lost.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 10, 4:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

He should have win, and will win. Just because it isn't deep Red doesn't mean it can't flip a Dem Senator.

Get ready for 2020. Please run Kamala Harris if possible.


Scott may win, but only because of 20,000+ undervotes in Broward county. With a properly designed ballot, he loses.

Get ready for Betomania--that's going to be Trump's opponent in 2020.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 11, 6:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
Sorry, nationally anyone that goes by Beto is going to get thrashed. I know it's not his actual name, but Beto cannot come close to getting elected on a national level


lol-- A guy named Barack can get elected twice, but an Irish guy nicknamed Beto can't? Not sure about that...

WookieMan says
Dems really need to shift out of the fringe issues


Healthcare is not a fringe issue. Education is not a fringe issue.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 26, 5:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HappyGilmore says
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
For posterity:





So, let's recap. As I tried to tell all of you, Nate was almost perfect. Dems are expected to win 38 seats when all is said and done and votes are done counting in CA.

The RCP polling average is going to be pretty damn close as well with Dems +7 or +7.5

My favorite--GA6 went to Dems this go around. Just needed a better candidate than Ossoff.

And as I tried to tell McGee--Republicans have lost suburban soccer Moms for a long time. Dems consistently won all types of suburban districts.

Typically, the party out of power wins in the midterms because the other party doesn't show up to vote. in 2018, Trump got his base out and they voted. But he has alienated so many ...


So, just a quick update and the almost final tally:

Dems have now gained 40 seats, more than almost anyone predicted. Dem House candidates will end up with almost as many votes in a mid-term election as Trump received in a Presidential year. And ended up +8. It was a complete rout.

So, while I'm certain Goran's mind wasn't changed, there is no doubt it was a blue wave.

Long term I think Trump will be great for the Democratic party, but short term it really hurts the country.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 1, 1:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How ironic that the only real voter fraud was by Republicans in NC-9.

The Republicans are a complete and utter joke at this point.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 1, 2:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Trump needs to decertify California elections and say try again in a couple years with FAIR elections!

I still don’t know anyone who admits to voting against Prop6, the gas and registration tax repeal. I know a lot of people who are pissed off that it failed.

Massive vote fraud is what Democrats do best.
Fuckers.


lol--Republicans are the very definition of sore losers and cheaters.

Purging people from voting rolls. Closing polling locations in Dem areas. Destroying absentee ballots from Dems. Then, if they somehow lose after all their cheating, they strip power from the winner on the way out. Disgusting assholes.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 1, 2:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
When the Repubs do it, it's voter fraud. When the Dems do it, it's voter guidance.


That's the ironic part. The Dems don't do it. Dems want to count every vote. I know that is blasphemy to Republicans, but it's actually how elections SHOULD work.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 8:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says

This is stupid


Actually this reply is stupid. It adds nothing. No explanation why the author thinks the post is stupid. No reasoning. Nothing.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 9:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

You should be asking what's happening in NC-9. The only place in the country where ACTUAL voter fraud took place.

And it was Republicans, of course. Like it always is.

Closing polling locations. Purging voter rolls. Calling voters to tell them the wrong polling date/times. All Republican tactics.

The horrendous crime of Dems is wanting every vote to be counted. Oh, the HORROR!!
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rocketjoe79 says

Oh, please, spare me. Are you saying Joe Kennedy didn't spray money throughout the south buying votes to get John F. Elected?


Consider yourself spared.

Please spare me the typical Republican whataboutism.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 2:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says

In the article I talk about both Republican and Democratic voter fraud. For you to say it's only the Republicans who cheat is flawed. It cuts both ways. The Republicans steal elections because the Democrats do and to think the Democrats just want to count every vote is feeble minded. Where did these votes come from? How did they get them after election night? This is legal election thievery. That you don't want to see that is Democrats blind side. Keep your eyes on the road Democrat. Don't look to the side, you might actually see something.


The votes come when US citizens exercise their right to vote. Counting always takes a long time in CA because the State allows votes to be postmarked on election day. This is how it is every year. To imply that there is something nefarious going on simply because Republicans are losing is wrong and dangerous.

Compare that to NC-9 where there is clear evidence of fraud. Looking at the voting data shows clear irregularities, and there are signed affidavits by people explaining the fraudulent behavior. It's just amazing that someone could write an article about voter fraud and not mention the one true case of voter fraud.

Republicans are sore losers. period.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 5:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And who exactly is pining for Communism? Names?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 4, 3:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

How hilarious is it that there are ZERO threads on pat.net about an actual case of election fraud. There are multiple threads about elections with no evidence of any wrongdoing, but no threads about a case that is almost certainly fraudulent.

Once again, Republicans prove that partisanship is a powerful drug.

They do NOT care about fair elections. They only care about winning by any means necessary.
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 4, 4:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says


Uh, search for Snipes on the Forum.


Yep, that's what I said. There are multiple threads about elections with no evidence of any wrongdoing!
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 4, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
Well, duh, the investigation hasn't begun yet.

We need $20M and the next two years on Snipes alone.


Why would you investigate an election when there is no evidence of wrongdoing?
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 4, 6:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/22/flashback-trump-asked-why-an-innocent-person-would-plead-the-fifth-video/

“The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa
  HappyGilmore   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 4, 6:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayneIndiana says
Democrats winning in completely Republican districts is evidence of wrongdoing.


Actually it's evidence that the Republican party is completely batshit crazy.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions