They're bussed in. Greater numbers of Americans believe Trump ought to be impeached, than believe he's doing a good job. — Wayfarer

Doesn't matter. Bus or no bus, if you can gather such crowds you're winning. All politicians try to bus people in, but it's hard or very expensive to do when you have no popularity.

Damn right, I overestimated the intelligence of the US electorate. — Wayfarer

>:O You're the guy who used to claim that Hillary Clinton is the best politician there is >:O >:O Just look at this:

Same poll looks like. 1500 people is a minuscule tally. — Buxtebuddha

1,500 people (if representative) in a survey gives you a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval.

People don't get it. When you try to predict elections, you don't look at the polls. You try instead to perceive in which direction the energy is shifting. The spirit of the times always makes itself manifest. If someone has the blessing of the gods it is clear, and nothing - regardless of what that is - can stop them.

If someone has the blessing of the gods it is clear, and nothing - regardless of what that is - can stop them. — Agustino

This is just nonsense.

This is just nonsense. — Michael

It is a recognised factor through history though. In China, for example, they called it divine mandate. Whoever held the divine mandate was simply unstoppable while holding it. In Europe we called it divine right to rule. All these are metaphors for interpreting the spirit of the age.

All these are metaphors — Agustino

Like I said, nonsense. I like literal. It's literally better than anything else.

Actually asking people for their opinions is always better than just trying to interpret "the mood". The problem with the latter is that a vocal minority is more noticeable than a silent majority. Most people don't show up to support or protest rallies. They're such a small proportion of the country that they're a useless measure. That's why polls are good (when done right). As I said above, a representative sample of 1,500 gives a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval.

He's a mendacious narcissist, an habitual liar, and totally incompetent to boot. The thing that really baffles me is that apparently intelligent people can somehow not see all this. — Wayfarer

Me, too.

So what could the reason be?

Are they honestly blind to the lies? Or is truth expendable?

Do they see the narcissist, but accept it because... they think he will keep them safe? Or something else?

Or are they only apparently intelligent?

People tend to double-down on their commitments rather than admit to being wrong. They're so invested that they're incapable of changing their mind. Probably an ego thing. There was a poll recently that showed that 61% of Trump supporters said that they would support him no matter what he does (and 57% of Trump critics said that they would never support him, which can make sense if the bad things he's done can't be made up for).

Trump got one thing sorta right. He could "stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot somebody and [he] wouldn't lose voters".

Which explains intransigence, but not the original decision to support someone so obviously inept.

So what could the reason be? — Banno

It beats me. I don't understand it. Sometimes I honestly think it might be the long-term effect of too much exposure to television - a kind of mass loss of grip on reality. But really, I don't know.

Education. The long-term result of poor funding of public learning.

well, I suppose if you see it in terms of the complete abdication of critical thinking, which is what has happened, then I suppose you're right.

As I said above, a representative sample of 1,500 gives a 2.58% margin of error at a 95% confidence interval. — Michael

It's ludicrous to think 1,500 gives only 2.58% margin of error (within 95% CI). To get these margins of error and the confidence intervals we make a ton of assumptions about the probability distribution of the population (such that we're dealing with a normal distribution where 2 standard deviations takes us to 95% confidence). Most of these assumptions are part of mathematical models that are necessary for us to make any kind of prediction whatsoever. However, there's no way - and I tell you this as a person who has worked with statistics and even took decisions based on them - that this is actually the case in reality.

There's just no way you'll get a 2.58% margin of error based on 1,500 people. Guaranteed. Not when the population is 320 million, spread across very different cultural and geographical regions. If my life depended on taking a decision based on that poll, I'd ignore what it says. This is one instance - which are actually getting more common - when we're deceived by numbers. It's very easy to be deceived by numbers in a scientific culture.

Not to mention that it's really easy for me to pull out whatever numbers I want out of these calcs. And everyone who works in research knows this. That's why mathematical models are known as "black boxes" - you see what goes in, and what comes out, but you don't see what happens inside.



Leaving that behind, if someone comes with that poll to you asking you to - say - make a bet on it, then you should send them to walk your dog in the park, and make no bet whatsoever.

In Europe we called it divine right to rule. — Agustino

Divine right is something completely different. Monarchs may have claimed divine right, as the king might say that it is the direct will of God that I rule. But such a monarchy requires a powerful church and allegiance to that church, to support the claim. The concept can't apply in democracy where the rulers are elected by the people, and anyone claiming divine right would be regarded as a dictator.

It beats me. I don't understand it. Sometimes I honestly think it might be the long-term effect of too much exposure to television - a kind of mass loss of grip on reality. But really, I don't know. — Wayfarer

What about people like me then? I barely watch TV at all.

Divine right is something completely different. Monarchs may have claimed divine right, as the king might say that it is the direct will of God that I rule. But such a monarchy requires a powerful church and allegiance to that church, to support the claim. The concept can't apply in democracy where the rulers are elected by the people, and anyone claiming divine right would be regarded as a dictator. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. Now this doesn't require a church. The Chinese never had a church. But they understood that there are spiritual forces at play in the world.

Sounds like a dictator to me.

Sounds like a dictator to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

A dictator would be an illegitimate ruler. The point is precisely that such a ruler would be legitimate until he lost that legitimacy.

That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. — Agustino

You can't see the obvious non sequitur here? That goes a long way to explaining your position, despite not watching television.

You can't see the obvious non sequitur here? — Banno

Yeah, sure, there is no logical necessity that someone who has the support of the people has divine right to rule, BUT it's a very good indicator. I don't care about logical necessity. There's no logical necessity that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I have no problem believing it!

So now you shift your ground.

It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously.

So now you shift your ground.

It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously. — Banno

Can you please explain how I've shifted my ground? I never claimed there was any logical necessity between the two statements. On the contrary, it is you who have strawmanned my point.

That goes a long way to explaining your position, despite not watching television. — Banno

You haven't shown this. Sorry.

I suggest you go back and re-read it, and please show me, where the hell do you see that I support there being a logical necessity between the two statements?

That's not true. In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule. — Agustino

No; there is no point in engaging with you. I'll leave these few comments here for others to consider.

What about people like Donald Trump who claim they have the support of the people (remember, he had way more people at his inaugural ceremony than Obama), and create the illusion that they have the support of the people (by staging rallies)? Do you think that this is an indication of divine right, or a will to dictatorship?

No; there is no point in engaging with you. I'll leave these few comments here for others to consider. — Banno

Well yeah, exactly. Like you always do. Run away. That certainly means you're right. That's how crazy some people are. They think if they don't argue they're right... *shakes head*

Do you think that this is an indication of divine right, or a will to dictatorship? — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be both.

To detail on this, the way it can be both is that often divine right to rule can make itself manifest through such means as well.

It is somewhat astonishing that there are those who take your comments here seriously. — Banno

Your behaviour towards me is identical to your behaviour towards Trump. You sit there throwing your hands in the air that it's astonishing that Trump won... well, if you stop being such a self-righteous person, you may start to see that it's not at all so astonishing. But of course, you won't. You'll keep on, never questioning yourself.

They think if they don't argue they're right... — Agustino

Others think that because they do argue, they are right.

Go over your argument again.

In a democracy someone can stand up, claim divine right, and if the people support him, that would be evidence that he has divine right to rule

is a non sequitur, since it does not follow from the support of the mob that one has divine right.

Then you shifted your ground from evidence to necessity.

Now you have moved to an ad hom: "Banno always runs away".

But I am still here, just as the cameras were still broadcasting.

Your behaviour towards me is identical to your behaviour towards Trump. — Agustino

Perhaps this goes to explaining your infatuation; you want to be like him.

That probably should incite pathos, but instead i find myself disgusted.

It's ludicrous to think 1,500 gives only 2.58% margin of error (within 95% CI). — Agustino

Actually, you're right. The math I saw may have been a little wrong. It's actually 2.53%. See here.

Not when the population is 320 million

Population size doesn't really matter, except when the sample size is greater than 5% of the population. See here.