|
That's what Silvers face is gonna look like after I punch it four or five hundred times or so
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Condiv posted:trump is an outsider Trump is sort of at the intersection of 'tea party' and 'moderate' if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
rscott posted:And who would benefit even more if the whole thing was privatized like they talked about a while back It's the only way they'll ever get the average consumer to voluntarily ship packages through UPS Pay twice as much as the post office for a package that is half as likely to get there? No thanks! The free market is retarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
538 talks alpha males vs beta males in a very special slack chat http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-you-have-to-be-manly-to-be-president/
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:538 talks alpha males vs beta males in a very special slack chat http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-you-have-to-be-manly-to-be-president/ I really hope they didn't chose the most flattering keyframe to display because JFC. Edit: On the 5-turdy-8 theme it looks like Nate is giving birth to the black baby jesus in that photo. More edit: I watched the video. Nate is def sitting on a warm turd. Also the key frame might actually have been the best single frame in the vid. Bip Roberts has issued a correction as of 01:20 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
What would any of the 538 writers know about being an alpha male?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Bernice Anders posted:What would any of the 538 writers know about being an alpha male? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I really hope they didn't chose the most flattering keyframe to display because JFC. Lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/720278889562562560
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
gently caress, now i'm a polytheist. thanks, nate 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
has 538 been accurate at all this primary season
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:has 538 been accurate at all this primary season No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:has 538 been accurate at all this primary season They've been okay besides Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:They've been okay besides Michigan. And the rise of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
To be fair, you could have made a ton of money if you managed to place a bet on either of those early on. The disappointing thing about 538 to me is that instead of using the increased resources to try and do better polling themselves they chose to just stay an aggrogator and analyzer of what they know to be flawed data while throwing up fluff conjecture articles to help fill the space and draw traffic. It's not that they are stupid or evil but Nate and Co just chose the easy payday instead of making an attempt to improve the system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:has 538 been accurate at all this primary season Their punditry is pretty bad but their poll averaging and weighting stuff is fine. Errors like Michigan are mostly due to bad polling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Their punditry is pretty bad but their poll averaging and weighting stuff is fine. Errors like Michigan are mostly due to bad polling. Kind of gotta agree with this tbh and that's coming from a fan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Their punditry is pretty bad but their poll averaging and weighting stuff is fine. Errors like Michigan are mostly due to bad polling. their pure poll averaging and weighting is fine, their "polls plus" model is garbage
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:their pure poll averaging and weighting is fine, their "polls plus" model is garbage It's actually been more accurate than polls-only this cycle for Democrats
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
for democrats you can probably get pretty close just by asking "how many black people"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
point of return posted:for democrats you can probably get pretty close just by asking "how many black people" True, but one thing I've seen from some media outlets (though not 538 to my knowledge) is that they just lump people together as "white" or "non-white" without breaking it down into other categories and then trying to generalize from that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
the shitman cometh http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Revenants Return posted:the shitman cometh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKnCeeAW48
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Revenants Return posted:the shitman cometh oh lordy lordy it starts with quibbling about which southern states are technically "deep south" (who the gently caress cares?) then it pivots to concern trolling about "diminishing" clinton wins in states with a lot of black voters next he insists that because miami and austin are liberal that makes it wrong to call the south the most conservative part of the country (even though it is) after that he pivots to the diversity argument: texas, florida, nc, and virginia have similar demographics to the "obama coalition" so obviously they must represent the democratic party. nevermind that texas never elects democrats anymore and the other states are tossups at best then he goes on to whip up a ridiculously messy chart that doesn't seem to reveal much of anything on the face of it except that clinton is up in delegates and has had high support among black voters (which we knew already) next comes the absurd leap of logic that because clinton is winning the states that are (according to him) most like the national democratic electorate, that makes her more representative of the party as a whole. nevermind that he is being incredibly selective about his demographics (race matters, but age, income, region, and political orientation don't? why not?) which brings us to one of the stupidest things nate has ever said an unbiased journalist posted:And the sort of wishful thinking Sanders is engaged in can cut both ways. Yes, Clinton’s lead would be considerably narrower (although she’d still be winning) without delegates from the Deep South. But what if you excluded delegates from caucuses, where Sanders has gained a net of 150 delegates on Clinton? Without those delegates, Sanders couldn’t even maintain the pretense of a competitive race. Not only are most of those caucus states extremely white and therefore poorly representative of Democrats’ national demographics — many of them (such as Idaho and Nebraska) are also quite red. Furthermore, caucuses tend to disenfranchise voters by making it harder to vote. Our demographic modeling suggests that this has hurt Clinton and that Sanders wouldn’t have won by the same enormous margins if those caucus states had held primaries instead. if you're wondering what's wrong with this, just remember that the original "obama coalition" was based on winning caucus states and the minority vote, so it's pretty funny that the two have somehow become opposites now also there's literally nothing in this entire article that actually contradicts bernie's core argument that he's mostly behind in delegates because his opponent was more popular in a specific region of the country that is known for being conservative and those states voted earlier. instead the argument is basically "see, if we ignore every other variable besides race, then all the evidence points to race being the decisive factor and bernie is just delusional/racist for saying otherwise"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
known progressive bastion idaho
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
like seriously if you did the same chart of most/least like the national democratic average but replaced race as your variable with something like "rate of church attendance" (which is about as indicative of voter behavior as race is) the whole thing would likely either be completely upside down or just look like random noise. this is basically an object lesson in how to cherry pick statistics to make a point you've already decided on
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:
You can make a pretty strong case that the interior mountain West (where Sanders has dominated) is more right wing than the South.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
He mentions the disenfranchising effects of caucuses but says nothing of closed primaries, which include Florida and New York.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:He mentions the disenfranchising effects of caucuses but says nothing of closed primaries, which include Florida and New York. I'm shocked at this, absolutely shocked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
I an still laughing at Jewel liking that bullshit diagram and thinking it's good.
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 16:22 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I an still laughing at Jewel liking that bullshit biagram and thinking it's good. Reading all the comments/replies about how awesome that diagram is led to an unexpectedly large loss of my faith in humanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Apparently they can't even keep their delegate counts correct anymore either, Sanders flipped 6 delegates at the state level conventions in Missouri, Nevada and Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:Apparently they can't even keep their delegate counts correct anymore either, Sanders flipped 6 delegates at the state level conventions in Missouri, Nevada and Colorado. he didn't flip any delegates in MO, they're bound to by primary results
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/ In case anybody was wondering...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
smg77 posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/ I can't believe people are paid to write these things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
smg77 posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/ not all boys have wieners tho 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
nice transgender erasure 5turdy8
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not all boys have wieners tho Condiv posted:nice transgender erasure 5turdy8 Two people who didn't actually read the article spotted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Two people who didn't actually read the article spotted. It's the same person. Perhaps it is you who did not read?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
smg77 posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/ Surprisingly interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
