|
Back on the CRAZY TRAIN - According to CNN, Fox has upped it's security in regards to threats on Megyn Kelly. Freeper are going to throw acid in her face aren't they?
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I don't buy the "Nate Silver doesn't know what he's doing" meme. He's definitely quite competent. Compared to the typical pundit? Certainly. Compared to an academic in statistics, machine learning, a social science etc? Not really. His methods are ad hoc and easily digestable, which is great for a company wanting to sell the analysis to the public. But nothing he does is particularly advanced and often lacks academic rigor. He's Nate Nye the Statistics Guy, not Einstein. Arcanen fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Back on the CRAZY TRAIN - According to CNN, Fox has upped it's security in regards to threats on Megyn Kelly. I can already see Trump tweeting how he did nothing wrong irt megyns acid burns
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
fronz posted:Does anyone have a link to the full fox debate? http://video.foxnews.com/v/4406746003001/watch-a-replay-of-fox-news-prime-time-presidential-debate/#sp=show-clips
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:What do people think about Bush and Walker splitting the field and causing chaos in the primaries? Is this likely to happen? Possible, but after the field winnows it would just become like Clinton / Obama in 2008, but without even the drama of super delegates. One of them would eventually gain the numerical delegate advantage and the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I don't buy the "Nate Silver doesn't know what he's doing" meme. He's definitely quite competent. I agree, however I think Trump (and possibly Sanders) doesn't really match anything he could refer to wrt predictive models
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:[ASK OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS ONLY]  Burn, motherfucker, burn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:http://morningconsult.com/2015/08/trumps-lead-grows-after-debate-controversy/ OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:hes treating current numbers as way too absolute and unchanging. he initially declared when trump announced that trump would go nowhere because his unfavorables were way too high, except those numbers have completely reversed and trump now has some of the highest favorables in the party. he declared that bernie could never win because only white liberals support him (when a month early he didnt even have that support), but i doubt hillary has a complete lock on every other demographic just yet. hillary has a complete and utter lock on the only demographic that matters: democratic party elected officials, fundraisers, and backroom operatives
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
All I want out of this is for Trump to run third party and get just a fraction of the support he's currently enjoying. Something like 2-3% of the national vote for Trump of the Trump Party would be enough to severely gently caress things up for the Republican candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:All I want out of this is for Trump to run third party and get just a fraction of the support he's currently enjoying. Something like 2-3% of the national vote for Trump of the Trump Party would be enough to severely gently caress things up for the Republican candidate. If he runs 3rd party Hillary will need to murder a kitten on live television to lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Trump has a better chance than walker. The mistake people make is that they think in absolutes. It's not natural to think probabalistically but that has been shown time and time again to be the best way to make predictions. Assigning a 0% chance this far out is pretty much always wrong. It's fine to "think in absolutes" when someone has absolutely no chance of winning. Like Trump. Trump is hilarious. He's also only capturing one segment of the GOP electorate which isn't enough to get him what he needs for the nomination. He's also playing a rigged game because the GOP leadership isn't half as stupid as people think, and they know very well Trump would get destroyed in a general--destroyed to the extent that the GOP loses the Senate and loses a shitload of seats in the House, too. Trump will not win the nomination and I am comfortable betting quite a bit (and, in fact, have) on that. Maybe we could do a friendly wager for an avatar or something? Yoogest most luxurious avatar if I lose?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What can Hillary attack him on? His misogyny? I mean, I think that's probably the reason she'll still win, but what else does she have? Well, and I concede that in the situation where Trump gets all the way to the general this may have lost all meaning, but he's never held office and his ideas are patently absurd. (Invoice Mexico for a giant wall, sure.) I know everyone likes a "Washington outsider", but his complete lack of political experience is gonna bring him down sooner or later. Unless everyone decides bribing politicians counts, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:Compared to the typical pundit? Certainly. Compared to an academic in statistics, machine learning, a social science etc? Not really. His methods are ad hoc and easily digestable, which is great for a company wanting to sell the analysis to the public. But nothing he does is particularly advanced and often lacks academic rigor. I mean, his background is in statistics. I'm not sure how "social sciences" experience would help and I'm unaware of any instance of machine learning being applied to accurately predict elections. That said, if you could point me to an academic who does the same thing (publicly-available predictions with a rigorous basis, not occasional papers) I would be grateful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I agree, however I think Trump (and possibly Sanders) doesn't really match anything he could refer to wrt predictive models Yeah, it seems to me that people who are focusing on the statistics are just missing the whole emotional appeal of a candidate like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If he runs 3rd party Hillary will need to murder a kitten on live television to lose. That might not be enough for the dog lovers of this country
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Assigning a 0% chance this far out is pretty much always wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Montasque posted:What Happens When You Rescind an Invitation to Trump? using his children as a sympathy shield gently caress you~ you get what you deserve hatemonger
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I mean, his background is in statistics. I'm not sure how "social sciences" experience would help and I'm unaware of any instance of machine learning being applied to accurately predict elections. http://election.princeton.edu/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
The likelyhood that Trump gets the nomination is not much higher than 0%, but this is also a party who had the sitting house majority leader and one of the most powerful men in congress primaried by a complete nobody. Underestimating the strength of the anti-institution crowd is probably not wise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
What if it's Hillary-Bush-Trump and a bunch of low info voters decide that Bush must be the "moderate" candidate and support him, and the country splits 40-40-20 or so and then near the end when Trump realizes he has no chance to win he decides it's better to bow out than to lose ('cause trump never loses) and declares he's got better poo poo to do than this stupid loser election and his supporters go for Bush and Bush wins? WHAT THEN?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Bryter posted:He obviously doesn't definitively have a 0% chance, but if you're basing your predictions on what we've learnt from past races, he has no chance. What we've learnt might not matter: this time could, of course, be different, but calling any given cycle "the game changer" is pretty much always wrong. More to the point, this election is a little different, just like 2012 slightly iterated on 2008, and so on. Bernie has a 0% chance, but it's a stout zero. In several more elections, someone like him and running from his position might have an actual chance to steal the primary, but that's going to take a lot more evolution in the way national primaries and their influencing factors behave. Edit: I don't mean "national primary", obviously. I mean "primary process for a national election"
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Back on the CRAZY TRAIN - According to CNN, Fox has upped it's security in regards to threats on Megyn Kelly. Why did Brooke Baldwin get Megan Kelly hair all of sudden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Enough is Enough- no more Bushes! https://t.co/0k0Y0pgbhC Trump just tweeted this
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:Compared to the typical pundit? Certainly. Compared to an academic in statistics, machine learning, a social science etc? Not really. His methods are ad hoc and easily digestable, which is great for a company wanting to sell the analysis to the public. But nothing he does is particularly advanced and often lacks academic rigor. You do know he is an academic in statistics right? Like, remember last election when we made fun of all the idiots being all "NO ROMNEY WILL WIN NATE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING HE'S A DUMB FAT NERD BASEBALL MAN"? Don't be those dudes now because he doesn't think your favorite candidate slash the candidate you think is funniest will win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Enough is Enough- no more Bushes! https://t.co/0k0Y0pgbhC  donald trump just flinging poo poo like there's no tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Sam Wang's good and doesn't get enough credit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
I actually think not having Democratic debates is also hurting Clinton as well as Sanders. Right now a lot of Democrats aren't aware of Hilary's positions, which so far are actually more to the left than previously assumed, though of course not as far as Sanders. (Whether we can trust that she's genuine in her positions is another story) If Democratic voters were being more exposed to Clinton's policy positions, she might be generating more enthusiasm. I do think overall the lack of debates is hurting Sanders more, but I think Clinton might want to rethink having only six debates, and having them start in October.,
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Nate Silver is notable for using sane statistical models in a field (politics) where most people are insane. I will probably trust his prediction on the next president a month or two before the election, but not before then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Enough is Enough- no more Bushes! https://t.co/0k0Y0pgbhC  at the imbecile who gave Jorb! 100 million loving dollars.Bush is done btw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
I updated my voter registration to republican and am unironically voting for trump in the NV primary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
echronorian posted:Look this is all fun and everything but there's still a 75% chance of this being Clinton vs Bush I thought this as well until last week's debate. He's gonna have a rough time
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:The likelyhood that Trump gets the nomination is not much higher than 0%, but this is also a party who had the sitting house majority leader and one of the most powerful men in congress primaried by a complete nobody. Underestimating the strength of the anti-institution crowd is probably not wise. That was a congressional race where nobody was paying attention and the establishment guy didn't care or campaign. You can't slip past unnoticed in a presidential race, and Trump will have the full weight of GOP establishment money, power, and organization working against him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Not a huge fan of Sam Wang. For one thing, he's a neuroscience guy who just does this for fun. For another, he made a huge mistake in 2010 where his model called a race against Harry Reid by a ridiculous margin (99.999% or something) that Harry Reid ultimately won. Maybe his models have improved since then, but that sort of mistake shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I thought this as well until last week's debate. He's gonna have a rough time Because his brother was such a fantastic debater? I do agree some, though. I'd be interested to look at Ws polling in 2000 and 04
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Sam Wang's good and doesn't get enough credit. The best part about Sam Wang is that when he doesn't have data for stuff, he shuts the hell up. Nate Silver doesn't do that (and, in fairness to him, it's not his fault--he has a brand to manage now and he has to produce stuff that lies well outside his wheelhouse in order to pay the bills now). Nate Silver is poo poo at overseas elections. Nate Silver is poo poo at strategy. Nate Silver is poo poo at not being a tone-deaf moron. Yet because 538 is a thing now, he has to keep writing even when he has nothing useful to talk about. He's perfectly good at predicting election results in the US, though, and I don't question his quant chops a bit. It's when he tries to play in fields where his background doesn't apply that he looks like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
FairGame posted:The best part about Sam Wang is that when he doesn't have data for stuff, he shuts the hell up. Most of the 538 stories are fluff but Nate Silver's stuff is still good. Also, Nate's electoral models are more than just poll averages. This post is a pretty decent summary of his methodology: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-model-works/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:You do know he is an academic in statistics right? On the other hand, Trump 32%.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
eric posted:I updated my voter registration to republican and am unironically voting for trump in the NV primary. Get rid of Harry Reid while your at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:That was a congressional race where nobody was paying attention and the establishment guy didn't care or campaign. You can't slip past unnoticed in a presidential race, and Trump will have the full weight of GOP establishment money, power, and organization working against him. I don't disagree with this in the slightest. My own comment was likely slightly disingenuous tbh, because I don't actually think that they have much, if anything, to do with one another. The only point I was getting at is that the GOP has a large anti-establishment wing that is angry and loud. This wing has been around for a long time [hello john birch society] and is usually quite galvanized and is capable of sucking up all the oxygen in a room. How much of the total GOP electorate they make up at this point is unknown, but simply assuming Trump is going to go away when he can tap into that wing of the party and get them behind him is probably an error.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 20:20
|
|