|
Donkwich posted:I was going to reply to a post in this thread earlier that was in the vein of "isn't everything going to be awesome when all the old people die, gently caress you dad" with this point. I'm genuinely concerned that millenials (my generation) will continue to pass down racism when they become the dominant generation. The alt-right kidz aren't going away soon (especially after the Bannon thing). Lol if you think racism is something that can be educated out of society. Every generation of every culture was racist and every generation will be racist. Feudal japan? Racist. 80s west germany? Racist. Asian steppe-riders? Racist. Middle-earth? Racist. MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Aug 21, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:This I believe. After all, Free Republic is full of ancient white men that jimrob manages to bullshit 80 grand a quarter from for "forums upkeep". Course the moron shot himself in the foot again doing their Trumpstaffle crackdown on Cruzers How many people are still using that site? I really doubt it's even a 4 digit number.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Lol if you think racism is something that can be educated out of society. Every generation of every culture was racist and every generation will be racist. I mean, if there wasn't hard evidence that this is slowly changing over time then this would be a cynically valid point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
That LA Times / USC poll has Trump up by two now. I know it's not indicative of the state of the race itself, but expect other polls to tighten as well. For the record I think the next ABC News / Wash Post poll is going to show her up by three. It does seem like if the GOP had managed to get any of their other candidates on the ticket instead of Trump, that candidate would have won. Those thirty years of constant and groundless attacks have really worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That LA Times / USC poll has Trump up by two now. I know it's not indicative of the state of the race itself, but expect other polls to tighten as well. For the record I think the next ABC News / Wash Post poll is going to show her up by three. Hillary's demonic ties seem increasingly likely when the only opponent she could beat because of the constant media attacks is the one the GOP chose. Also I wouldn't expect the "other polls to tighten". Don't almost all of them have Trump's approval like below the earth's crust?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
There no point to looking at any one particular poll. Polls are only accurate predictors in the aggregate. Individual polls moving around is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:There no point to looking at any one particular poll. Polls are only accurate predictors in the aggregate. Individual polls moving around is meaningless. Yinlock posted:Also I wouldn't expect the "other polls to tighten". Don't almost all of them have Trump's approval like below the earth's crust?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html So Trump companies owe at least $650M in debt
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Also it does seem like the state polls that actually matter are pretty steady. I guess it's just red-staters are finally and totally on board?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Also it does seem like the state polls that actually matter are pretty steady. I guess it's just red-staters are finally and totally on board? You'd think that'd be the most likely explanation, but Trump's numbers haven't actually significantly increased. It's actually that Hillary's numbers have taken a slight hit. My guess is that now that Trump's no longer saying incredibly stupid poo poo on a daily basis as he was at the height of the Khan fiasco and has been portrayed by the media as having a couple of "serious" moments, a chunk of "lesser evil" Hillary voters who were swayed by the temperament argument are less motivated to vote against Donald now but haven't swung over to voting for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Can someone explain how polls became so important? Do they ever really predict anything or is it just a bunch of cheerleader bullshit where both sides try to make it look like they're going to win? Is the intention to demoralize your opponents voters so their either don't vote or they vote for you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:lol that just reinforces it tho. Facebook is almost too much work by itself...I game with younger guys online and they want to have a Discord AND and Mumble AND a Steam group AND IRC and like 2 other things just to stay in contact and chat and it's like, naw man, I don't have that kind of fuckin patience. Hit me up on Steam or Mumble. Those cover all the bases E: Sever with anyone that tries forcing Skype or Teamspeak Jackard fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Can someone explain how polls became so important? Do they ever really predict anything or is it just a bunch of cheerleader bullshit where both sides try to make it look like they're going to win? Is the intention to demoralize your opponents voters so their either don't vote or they vote for you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
So here's a question: We know that the RNC did a "post-mortem" on why Romney lost in 2012, and that there was maybe 5 hot seconds in 2013 when they considered making the party more open and less hostile. These threads did used to be called "Republican Rebuilding", after all. We also know that all of that was thrown in the garbage dump, doused with gasoline, set alight, and has turned into a full on trash fire by Trump. Is/was there an equivalent "here's what we learned/this is what we need to do better", either from the DNC in general or Clinton's campaign team specifically? And I mean besides not inviting Mark Penn back. Yes, the platform and the candidate did shift leftward (thanks in no small part to Sanders' challenge), but was there any significant lessons that came out of the 2008/2012 races for the victors?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Can someone explain how polls became so important? Do they ever really predict anything or is it just a bunch of cheerleader bullshit where both sides try to make it look like they're going to win? Is the intention to demoralize your opponents voters so their either don't vote or they vote for you? If they're done correctly they give an accurate representation of who is voting, who isn't and how it changes over time. The gold standard is a plus or minus three percent drift. So if someone is down by ten points as long as the polling is done correctly there is statistically no chance of the down candidate winning in that state because they're outside of the +/-3% drift. However if they're down by 2% they have a chance of winning, albeit a smaller one than if the candidates were equal. It's too expensive to ask everyone how they're going to vote before an election so you ask a fraction of those people, but in a way that's representational. You want a mix of young and old, men and women, different ethnicities and maybe even creeds if you're measuring for that. You try to ask questions of people who are as close to the total electorate as possible. Then you ask questions. Good pools try to be neutral and frame questions in a way that doesn't lead people in one way or another in order to keep from introducing bias which skews the results of how people actually vote. Anyway it can be cheerleader bullshit. There are polling companies that have agendas. Good polling companies tend to be neutral though and give anyone who wants to take the temperature of the country accurately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Can someone explain how polls became so important? Do they ever really predict anything or is it just a bunch of cheerleader bullshit where both sides try to make it look like they're going to win? Is the intention to demoralize your opponents voters so their either don't vote or they vote for you? I've used this analogy before, but the closest parallel to polling is counting tree ring. Look at the below picture:  What you're looking at right now is the inside of a tree's trunk. As a refresher, tree rings count the age of the tree, and certain other factors. If the rings are thicker then the tree had a very good growing year, and the opposite if thinner. These rings are (more or less) the same no matter where in the trunk you look. Because this pattern is the same, you don't have to look at the entire tree to get an idea of how it looks. You can just take a tiny part of the tree, and you get a general idea of how the tree as a whole works. There are even special devices that can sample a tree without killing it, called Tree corers. Now how does this relate to polling? Take a look at the below chart, as an example:  Doesn't this look pretty similar to the picture of the tree? As it turns out, they actually are very similar. Using a properly conducted poll, you can get a similar sliver of America and get a sense of how people are feeling about a given topic or issue. If it's so simple, then why are there so many polls, and why do they say different things? There's two factors at play: assumptions, and general randomness. In order for any model to work, you have to have some set of data to input into it. For example, if you have the average length of a day and you're trying to find out how it varies over the year, you would assume that days are longer in the summer months and shorter in the winter months. For polling, there are two groups important in this case: registered voters and "likely" voters. Registered voters are those legally able to vote. It makes sense to only poll them because they're the only ones who can actually make a difference. "Likely" voters are those that (as a group) are much more likely to show up to the polls. These are typically older, whiter, more conservative than generic registered voters. How much more conservative is often up for debate. The other factor is just plain randomness. Sometimes when you're out polling, you might call up a bunch of Democrats, so you get a poll that says Hillary is up by 15, or vice versa with Donald Trump. That's why every poll you see will have a margin of error. For example, it might say "+/- 3%". this means you can add or subtract 3% to any of the values in the poll, and it's equally likely that it's those values. If two options are within that 3%, then they're "within the margin of error". This means that you can't really tell what their support is, and they're effectively tied. So for example, if a poll comes out that says Trump 48 Hillary 46, but the margin of error is 3%, then Trump's numbers could be anywhere from 45 to 51, and Hillary's could be 43 to 49. There's a very large overlap there. If you get a poll with 3% margin of error that says Hillary 49 Trump 41, then Hillary's numbers are anywhere from 46 to 52, and Trump's are 38 to 44. This means that there's no way that Trump is ahead of Hillary, so she's clearly leading. What bad pollsters will do is one of two things: They will either poll a bunch of people who are disproportionately conservative, or they will make a poll with a very high margin of error that happens to support their candidate. You might hear the name Rasmussen, they're typically a conservative leaning pollster. This means that the people they poll tend to be more conservative than the average pollster or the average American. This means Republican candidates have a natural advantage in their polls. For the other case, if a poll comes out with Trump leading 50-44, but the margin of error is 8%, then there's no way to tell if it's accurate or not. It's created purely to generate clicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:So I'm still baffled as to how Trump is getting away with literal crimes so publicly. I mean I'm aware that Rich Person Being Openly Shady As gently caress is nothing new but Trump's practically waving a giant banner from his dumb tower saying I'M STEALING MONEY. The Republican base has always been blind to the faults in their own party that they rant about with Democrats because they never really cared about any of those things. They really only care about getting validation for their terrible beliefs and finding something, anything to sink the competition. Sure, they bleat about morality and honestly or other platitiudes, but it's all just noise. They ignored all he many, many ways Trump is horrible because they don't really care about him as a person. He's just the worshipped because he represents the pinnacle of the ideal of white privalage and seems like he'd really hurt everyone they hate. His vulgar, stupid hateful rehtoric is the biggest appeal since they relate to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:I was going to reply to a post in this thread earlier that was in the vein of "isn't everything going to be awesome when all the old people die, gently caress you dad" with this point. I'm genuinely concerned that millenials (my generation) will continue to pass down racism when they become the dominant generation. The alt-right kidz aren't going away soon (especially after the Bannon thing). That was probably my post which was half sarcastic, but it's still a good point that even though racism will continue to exist and probably always will, it is slowly becoming less politically relevant and has been for decades. Twenty years from now, the type of virulent racism that is supporting Trump will be present in a lower amount enough to the point that a candidate like him will not be capable of doing as well as he has done. The GOP at the very least will have to shift more to the center on some issues. RE: pollchat, there's a measure in statistics called a Standard Deviation that applies to what you're getting at with margin of error. Fajita Queen fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Republicans prep ‘break glass’ emergency plan as Trump tumbles these stories make me happy quote:“Anti-Trump voters who are reluctantly voting for Hillary may be the swing vote this cycle,” said Andy Sere, a Republican ad maker who is working on over a half-dozen competitive down-ballot races. “She's unpopular even in states and districts that she'll carry easily, which means voters aren't giving her a mandate -- they want a check and balance against her.” "If Clinton wins in a landslide, it'll mean she doesn't have a mandate!"  forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Republicans prep ‘break glass’ emergency plan as Trump tumbles these stories make me happy The problem is that nobody hated Bob Dole. Bob Dole was just clearly going to lose to Bill Clinton. Also Bob Dole still did operate a ground game and came out to help campaign for the down ticket. The party didn't run away from Bob Dole, they simply focused their money on the down ticket. The only strategy for them in '16 is to run away from Trump and try and counter Clinton's ground game district by district. There's no one reaching out to the quadrennial Republican voters who only care about the Presidency and are needed to blunt the quadrennial Democratic surge. All the attempts to sell yourself as the check on Hillary in the world aren't going to help if you're also loudly proclaiming that you're still down with the Trump. Kilroy posted:That LA Times / USC poll has Trump up by two now. I know it's not indicative of the state of the race itself, but expect other polls to tighten as well. For the record I think the next ABC News / Wash Post poll is going to show her up by three. Hillary hasn't even begun to attack Trump. This entire election is Hillary sitting back and watching Trump shoot round after round into his own feet. You can't look at the numbers from this election and extrapolate that the ebbs in Hillary's numbers where Trump keeps his poo poo together for a couple days would coincide to a different Republican winning. With a different Republican Hillary would be burning through her binders full of opposition research and grinding them down with an actual offense. Thinking Hillary would use the same strategy she's used against Trump if up against someone else is like assuming everyone would play Soccer exactly the same if they could use their hands to touch the ball. Dick Trauma posted:Can someone explain how polls became so important? Do they ever really predict anything or is it just a bunch of cheerleader bullshit where both sides try to make it look like they're going to win? Is the intention to demoralize your opponents voters so their either don't vote or they vote for you? Polls are, I believe the 2012 term was, devastatingly accurate. Both sides try to downplay or upplay the polls, but they're generally pretty accurate. From time to time they will be done with bad assumptions, which lead to poor adjusting the sample for the expected demographic results. Pretty much though they're so important because the provide accurate and valuable data about the race for people who pay attention to them, allowing them to more or less gauge how the race is going without just checking their magic eight ball until November and praying to whatever arcane gods they've sold their soul to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
I can't wait for November 9th when we'll start hearing Republicans crying that such lofty things as "GOTV efforts" and "having a ground game" are voter fraud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I can't wait for November 9th when we'll start hearing Republicans crying that such lofty things as "GOTV efforts" and "having a ground game" are voter fraud. Everyone knows that "ground game" is a democrat dogwhistle for driving vans of latinos around so they can each vote at a dozen different poll booths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
The retconning of the first Clinton administration into this period of sunshine and rainbows is loving ridiculous
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:The retconning of the first Clinton administration into this period of sunshine and rainbows is loving ridiculous Yea, a two-term Republican successor will do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
PEC update: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/08/21/sharpening-the-forecast/ Basically he made the change he would usually make after Labor Day. Says the election is closer in stability to post-'96 elections. 92% chance of HRC win
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
emdash posted:92% chance of HRC win  That means there's an 8% chance of the world ending in nuclear armageddon! Time to panic myself into a heart attack!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Yea, a two-term Republican successor will do that. I hope HRC has a better plan for the economy than "hope a bubble inflates under my administration but doesn't pop until I'm a lame duck"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
What I don't get is if the margin is so large, why don't we see more outliers, even or especially among poo poo polls? If Rasmussen's MOE is six points, they should turn the occasional Clinton +8 result. Is it because of herding? (Herding is pollsters going "That can't be right" at a poll result and figuring out a way to have the result "make more sense" and be in line with other polls coming out.) Or do they massage the data somehow? That was a good polling for dummies post, though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
rscott posted:The retconning of the first Clinton administration into this period of sunshine and rainbows is loving ridiculous Look at who preceded and succeeded him and it pretty much is by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Trying to assign generational markers to people who are still alive iss dumb pseudosociology bullshit garbage and no one gives a poo poo what cutesy nickname you'd rather get called than "millenial". Seems pretty insane to say you can only describe people 120 years later when they've all finally died. I mean look, there's still someone alive in America who was born in 1903, so we can't describe that generation yet, under your rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Antti posted:What I don't get is if the margin is so large, why don't we see more outliers, even or especially among poo poo polls? If Rasmussen's MOE is six points, they should turn the occasional Clinton +8 result. Is it because of herding? (Herding is pollsters going "That can't be right" at a poll result and figuring out a way to have the result "make more sense" and be in line with other polls coming out.) Or do they massage the data somehow? I should've separated those points, but basically Rasmussen typically has low MOE polls, other bad pollsters will use high MOE polls. It's two different strategies - doing a good poll, but with biased inputs, and just doing a bad poll. Another thing I should've mentioned - the way you get high MOE polls is if you don't sample many people. There's some math behind it, but the basic logic is sound - if you ask a random person about politics, you might get a bunch of answers. the more people you ask, the more accurate the response is (assuming they're completely random). Typically for a nationwide poll you need ~1000 people to get a "good" (~3%) margin of error. Here's another good article about that: http://www.stats.org/presidential-pollings-margin-for-error/ As for massaging, yeah that can happen but I don't know to what frequency. Generally you're not supposed to do that though unless it's blindingly obvious that you didn't randomly sample (e.g., you got all the people from Whitesville Missouri or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Hillary hasn't even begun to attack Trump. I don't like assuming that Democratic candidates are going to do certain "obvious" things because it leads to you saying "well of course they'll use Obama in the 2014 midterms, he's a popular President." Policy-wise I generally agree with the Democratic platform, but they are incredibly skilled at losing elections they should win, not to mention turning narrow defeats into massive landslides against them. Frankly the party comes off as (politically) incompetent and weak, even if Hillary herself does not. WampaLord posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
This ad's been running nonstop on pretty much every channel for a month now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This but unironically. You realize Donald Trump has no effective path to 270 EVs at this moment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I should've separated those points, but basically Rasmussen typically has low MOE polls, other bad pollsters will use high MOE polls. It's two different strategies - doing a good poll, but with biased inputs, and just doing a bad poll. Okay, that makes sense. So Rasmussen might collect enough of a sample to get a technically good poll, but the house effect is expressed in how they collect the sample and interpret the results. After all how it works is that you get, say, 1000 responses and then you map that sample into the general electorate using demographics and likely voter screens. So if your sample has fifty affluent and fifty poor African Americans in it, you have to reduce the weight of the affluent ones. What Rasmussen might be doing is assuming that the likely voters are older and whiter than other pollsters, which is a reasonable argument you can make, inducing a conservative lean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I get that and I hope she gets started on it immediately. Just because he's firing rounds into his feet doesn't mean you aren't allowed to pummel his chest with artillery until there's nothing left. Don't interrupt your opponent when they are loving up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You realize Donald Trump has no effective path to 270 EVs at this moment? Xae posted:Don't interrupt your opponent when they are loving up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Xae posted:Don't interrupt your opponent when they are loving up. This. When someone is loving up you don't give them someone else to channel that poo poo towards. You leave them to wallow in their idiocy. When they're trying to recuperate and are actually pulling it back together is when you pounce.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Eh, I'm '77 and even I don't remember the Cold War. All I remember about it from the time is the news showing the Berlin Wall coming down and the commentators saying we won the war. I was like "we were at war?" Then along came Desert Shield/Storm, a vigil in town, and watching us kick the poo poo out of everything on the news I'm a '77 as well, but I do remember it. That memory's the dividing line way more than the year - I've tried and literally can't explain the emotional concept of the Cold War to younger co-workers and acquaintances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:This. When someone is loving up you don't give them someone else to channel that poo poo towards. You leave them to wallow in their idiocy. When they're trying to recuperate and are actually pulling it back together is when you pounce. But Trump never stops digging
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:50
|
|