|
That's not entirely correct, there could be other issues or polling techniques that bias all the samples in the same direction. Not reaching young voters is an obvious example. Or how some polling companies consistently are +R or D when compared to the actual result. Of course averaging is useful for reducing variance but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that all the polls were off due to some systemic factor (which silver noted).
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
DOOP posted:Can I hope he runs just for the 'stache alone? Cause it's pretty good. When was the last time a President had a stache? Or facial hair? Even a nominee for that matter? As far as primary major party candidates: Bob Dornan, 1996. Though I've seen pictures of him with and without a beard. Speaking of Bullet Bob, who will play the bomb-throwing social conservative this time? Even if Huckabee gets in, he will be treated as a front runner and will likely act at least more considerate. He'll do all he can to avoid the killer sound byte, presumably. I'm thinking someone will run a more vocal campaign to push him and others into dealing with those issues, like how Santorum got Romney to look moderate on contraception last time. Then again, Santorum actually got traction. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
enbot posted:That's not entirely correct, there could be other issues or polling techniques that bias all the samples in the same direction. Not reaching young voters is an obvious example. Or how some polling companies consistently are +R or D when compared to the actual result. Of course averaging is useful for reducing variance but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that all the polls were off due to some systemic factor (which silver noted). Yes but my point is more and more data from different sources make the idea that almost all these sources are biased in the wrong direction increasingly unlikely, not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By the way, the only two poll based models that got the EV count exactly correct in 2012 were those that did a simple, unweighted average of all the available state level polls. Was this true in 2008 as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:By the way, the only two poll based models that got the EV count exactly correct in 2012 were those that did a simple, unweighted average of all the available state level polls. Silver predicted all 50 states correctly, he had special sauce weighting, why does he not count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Anyway, it turned out that Obama increased his vote lead in minority communities between 2008 and 2012, which actually nobody was predicting. Mitt Romney's tanning-bed edition of minority outreach actually proved less palatable than open antagonism? I guess we know where the GOP's route back to the White House in 2016 really lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
I always chuckle when I think about the (required) epistemology course I took at a super-conservative college along with a rhetoric/speech class where they pounded this premise into everyone's head: "Truths are objective, and there are things you just can't argue your way out of. Some things are true because they're true." I just know that 75% or more of those people are virulently anti-Obama and gladly swallowed every bit of spin from Dick Morris and Dean Chambers while mocking Nate Silver.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Silver predicted all 50 states correctly, he had special sauce weighting, why does he not count? His final EV count, which is the thing that used the special sauce model he developed, was 313-225.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Joementum posted:His final EV count, which is the thing that used the special sauce model he developed, was 313-225. I think Silver's highest likelihood scenario was the final result. His 313-225 is his average result. This is splitting hairs, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:His final EV count, which is the thing that used the special sauce model he developed, was 313-225. How did the various predictions work out further in advance? That's really where the brunt of his effort was focused, I thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
CapitanAmerica posted:The fact is Assad used Chemical Weapons against his people and the world did nothing. It just gives the green flag for any nation in the world wanting to use chemical weapons on their own citizens that they can do so and have no consequences. And I do not doubt for one second that it will happen in the future. It is just as likely that Rebels initiated those gas attacks. There isn't a single good reason for Assad to gas the Rebels and it gave every excuse in the world for foreign intervention, principally from the US, who has eagerly awaited the downfall of the Syrian regime for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Lote posted:I think Silver's highest likelihood scenario was the final result. His 313-225 is his average result. This is splitting hairs, however. Is that what the state-by-state prediction chart is? I think that's just averaged state-level polls and not part of his model, but there's no explanation and the NYT redesign seems to have broken his archive. Anyway, I'm not saying that Silver is Dean Chambers level stupid, just that it doesn't seem like we need all that much fancy math to get a reasonable prediction of Presidential general elections because there's enough public polling data that even a simple average is accurate enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:It is just as likely that Rebels initiated those gas attacks. There isn't a single good reason for Assad to gas the Rebels and it gave every excuse in the world for foreign intervention, principally from the US, who has eagerly awaited the downfall of the Syrian regime for years. Please, tell me more. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Is that what the state-by-state prediction chart is? I think that's just averaged state-level polls and not part of his model, but there's no explanation and the NYT redesign seems to have broken his archive. His state by state results were accurate and his most likely prediction was the final result at about 20%. Also a sample size greater than one would be better do drawing that last conclusion. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:It is just as likely that Rebels initiated those gas attacks. There isn't a single good reason for Assad to gas the Rebels and it gave every excuse in the world for foreign intervention, principally from the US, who has eagerly awaited the downfall of the Syrian regime for years. Why don't you go to the Middle East thread and grace Brown Moses with your wisdom? I'm sure he'd love to hear all the many evidence-based reasons you have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Ted Cruz won a straw poll! Now, normally, this is just a silly filler story with no bearing on the primary, but the details make it a bit more interesting.quote:Texas Senator Ted Cruz was the overwhelming winner of an unofficial fun straw poll of Republicans attending the Penobscot County GOP Caucus on Saturday at Husson College, administered by the Maine Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). Cruz is firing up a grill in Rand's backyard and having a feast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:It is just as likely that Rebels initiated those gas attacks. There isn't a single good reason for Assad to gas the Rebels and it gave every excuse in the world for foreign intervention, principally from the US, who has eagerly awaited the downfall of the Syrian regime for years. Assad must be a rational actor, therefore he must not have gassed his own people. That is some seriously circular reasoning. Level Descartes: achieved. (And it's also demonstrably untrue, but knowing that would have required you to be familiar with the situation, which is obviously not the case.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz won a straw poll! Now, normally, this is just a silly filler story with no bearing on the primary, but the details make it a bit more interesting. Possibly more remarkable is that only 3 points separate Rand and Michelle Bachmann.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Id think Cruz would be a bigger star among the "teavangelical" types since he seems to be comfortable talking Jesus than Rand, unless anyone knows otherwise. I don't see how they differ on economics, aside from Rand liking to discuss theoretical gobbledygook and Cruz just being more straightforwardly anti-whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Rehashing the Syrian false flag fappery again? Holy poo poo. Let me tell you about thermite...
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
I too remember when Obama used the Syrian CW attacks as a pretext to invade Syria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I think it was the GOP follies thread where I pointed out this is the game plan for 2016, though anyone could see it coming a mile away. But still it's nice to have confirmation from the trickster imp in charge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8h0JDXA34w Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
It's risky to say "people aren't going to fall for this poo poo again" but just to keep myself sane I'm telling myself that. White House Staffers for Truth!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
It's pretty telling that in all of 2007 when you had an octet of "true" conservatives competing desperately for media attention and a GOP brain trust convinced Hillary was going to to win the nomination that the 90s Clinton scandals were rarely if ever brought up except in oblique terms. The 2014 GOP just has no discipline left whatsoever, they'll froth madly in the streets over the same issue that cost them a national election 16 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I think it was the GOP follies thread where I pointed out this is the game plan for 2016, though anyone could see it coming a mile away. But still it's nice to have confirmation from the trickster imp in charge. I have to say that I rather doubt that the Lewinsky scandal is going to get much traction with the newest generation of voters who weren't even born yet when it happened. It was a GOP farce 18 years ago, and it'll only look like more of one to modern voters who have become even more tolerant of such things. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I have to say that I rather doubt that the Lewinsky scandal is going to get much traction with the newest generation of voters who weren't even born yet when it happened. Agree, but that's not who they're going after.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Joementum could be a thing in 2016, as Joe Scarborough is kicking the tires on a possible 2016 runquote:Sources close to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough think he is seriously considering the prospect of leaving morning television to run for president in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I have to say that I rather doubt that the Lewinsky scandal is going to get much traction with the newest generation of voters who weren't even born yet when it happened. It was a GOP farce 18 years ago, and it'll only look like more of one to modern voters who have become even more tolerant of such things. Yeah, I don't see the Republican obsession with Bill Clinton's boxer shorts having an effect on anyone who was too young to care at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Joementum could be a thing in 2016, as Joe Scarborough is kicking the tires on a possible 2016 run Look at how well Jon Huntsman did. Who wouldn't want to drive in the "Jon Huntsman lane"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Look at how well Jon Huntsman did. Who wouldn't want to drive in the "Jon Huntsman lane"? Jon Hunstman's candidacy stalled out because as far as we know he's never killed anyone and subsequently got away with it. That's the kind of thing that'll give ol' vagina eyes an edge. Maybe he'll get his bosom buddy Harold Ford to be his running mate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I can't think of people more prone to huffing their own farts and calling it roses than the people on Morning Joe. So yeah, sounds like a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
It takes a very special kind of self-absorption to quit a job where you're paid millions of dollars to drink coffee and say stupid poo poo for three hours in order to lose at becoming President. Same goes for Mike Huckabee, but his show was only two hours a week and replaced the coffee with some bass licks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It takes a very special kind of self-absorption to quit a job where you're paid millions of dollars to drink coffee and say stupid poo poo for three hours in order to lose at becoming President. This is something I've wondered. Do these candidates somehow gain by running? It's hard to imagine why these no-hopers enter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is something I've wondered. Do these candidates somehow gain by running? It's hard to imagine why these no-hopers enter. Profile raising and to tap a captive audience of conservative book buyers. Scarborough might be just chasing his ego, but for the likes of Huckabee its all about boosting sales of his personality based products, like his radio show and his series of History courses. The exact same thing Palin was up to, becoming a political celebrity rather than a politician or statesman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is something I've wondered. Do these candidates somehow gain by running? It's hard to imagine why these no-hopers enter. Some clearly do if there's room for them to move up. Cain got to take over Boortz's show last year and I'm sure Newt sold a bunch of dumb Civil War and Ellis the Elephant books in addition to getting a spot on Crossfire. But the only place Huckabee and Scarborough have to go is primetime and you have to figure it'd be easier to get that by just staying at the network.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Profile raising and to tap a captive audience of conservative book buyers. Scarborough might be just chasing his ego, but for the likes of Huckabee its all about boosting sales of his personality based products, like his radio show and his series of History courses. The exact same thing Palin was up to, becoming a political celebrity rather than a politician or statesman. There's a reason we've taken to calling them "Book Tour Candidates".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Profile raising and to tap a captive audience of conservative book buyers. Scarborough might be just chasing his ego, but for the likes of Huckabee its all about boosting sales of his personality based products, like his radio show and his series of History courses. The exact same thing Palin was up to, becoming a political celebrity rather than a politician or statesman. There are far less demanding ways to get that kind of promotion in Republican circles though. As much as the financial motives may be at play you know guys like Gingrich were falling asleep hoping for some dire Romney story to come out so they could start their History channel documentary come from behind underdog win for the ages based on their charisma and grit alone. Grand delusion in other words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Some clearly do if there's room for them to move up. Cain got to take over Boortz's show last year and I'm sure Newt sold a bunch of dumb Civil War and Ellis the Elephant books in addition to getting a spot on Crossfire. But the only place Huckabee and Scarborough have to go is primetime and you have to figure it'd be easier to get that by just staying at the network. Scarborough already had a primetime show. Dunno if they'd restart the experiment 7 years after taking it away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I have to say that I rather doubt that the Lewinsky scandal is going to get much traction with the newest generation of voters who weren't even born yet when it happened. It was a GOP farce 18 years ago, and it'll only look like more of one to modern voters who have become even more tolerant of such things. Anyone who is not a Republican and would be swayed over Bill's indiscretions will probably not appreciate that what he did somehow paints her running for the office in a negative light either. Like, effectively blaming Hillary for her husband's infidelity as "gotcha" rebuke to the idea of the GOP waging a war on women is the most insane thought process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Scarborough already had a primetime show. Dunno if they'd restart the experiment 7 years after taking it away. It wasn't really taken away from him per se. Imus made that daft "nappy headed" comment and they canned him, shifting Scarborough into the morning slot since at the time he was really the only conservative voice they had, and that perspective seems to do better with the AM cable news watching demographic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:10
|
|