|
I'm pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread but I saw a quote that jumped out at me. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ontent=20160920 quote:During his allotted time to question Stumpf, Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., voiced skepticism at the idea that the 5,300 Wells Fargo employees who were fired had all acted independently. Obviously this is jumping topics quite a bit, but how does this line of thinking not apply to the police? Kind of neat to see a Republican making this connection with Wells Fargo though. I don't think it's getting nearly as much play as it should.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Haha, we're approaching another government shutdown. Congress playing games with people's lives, as always.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:Nate Silver has egg on his face because he (like everyone else) completely called the primary wrong and didn't believe the polls that spelled out a Trump victory, so now he's vastly overcorrecting. No. That is not at all what he's doing and I wish people would stop playing armchair statistician with his model when they have no idea what they're talking about. His model runs its predictions with the ability for the polls to be horrifically off either in Clinton or Trump's favor. Due to that you don't get something like Sam Wang's model which assumes the polls are "right" and will spit out 90+% probabilities when there's no loving way it's that definite. Nothing changed in the actual model after the primary, although if you note when he's being a pundit he's much more cautious now than he was in the fall. Nate Is A Good Modeler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Haha, we're approaching another government shutdown. Word filter still awesome
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Someone post the early voting data from NC that shows a slight uptick in absentee ballots from Democrats compared to 2016 but also shows a massive increase in ballots for independents, and you can guess who they're voting for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Nate went Full Pundit with his "endorsement primary" poo poo and got owned, and it was funny and we had some laughs at the guy's expense, and then for some reason a lot of goons took it really personally when we insulted the extremely nerdy looking white guy who sits at a computer for a living.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
OK, that Trump debate questionnaire has to be a ploy to get people to sign up for fundraising emails, right? Reading it, I think they already have their lines of attack worked out and it's more of a preview of his talking points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:No. That is not at all what he's doing and I wish people would stop playing armchair statistician with his model when they have no idea what they're talking about. His model runs its predictions with the ability for the polls to be horrifically off either in Clinton or Trump's favor. Due to that you don't get something like Sam Wang's model which assumes the polls are "right" and will spit out 90+% probabilities when there's no loving way it's that definite. Nothing changed in the actual model after the primary, although if you note when he's being a pundit he's much more cautious now than he was in the fall. Sam Wang's model is better because it isn't full of pundit juice
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problemsWashington Post posted:In 2010, a man named Martin Greenberg hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole while playing in a charity tournament at Trump’s course in Westchester County, N.Y.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Nate went Full Pundit with his "endorsement primary" poo poo and got owned. No. Also not true. If you model the primary based solely on polling you will get hilarious results like Herman Cain as the 2012 nominee, Howard Dean cruising to the nomination in 04, etc. Primary polling is volatile as hell so Nate threw in a proxy for party/institutional support: endorsements from elected politicians. It's a good modeling idea and if you notice once Trump started winning states he baked off the idea that Trump couldn't win. We're getting upset about it because it's pushing a falsehood and also a blatant misunderstanding of how statistical modeling works. It's like climate scientists getting pissed at people going "it's cold out therefore global warming is fake, checkmake  "Lemming posted:Sam Wang's model is better because it isn't full of pundit juice I dislike Wang's model because it doesn't allow for enough variance or the polls to just straight up be off. I still look at it (and the NYTimes and 538) but I think 538's is best, then NYTimes and then Sam Wang. Basically I'm upset with the level of certainty Wang assigns to his outcomes. axeil fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Sam Wang's model is better because it isn't full of pundit juice The punditry is wholly separate from the model. Nate Silver Is Not A Good Pundit, Nate Silver Is A Good Modeler
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Edit: holy poo poo wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
axeil posted:No. Also not true. The endorsement primary was not a real statistical model dude. I'm sorry that the smart man with the web site was wrong and that Jeb! is not the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Haha, we're approaching another government shutdown. Jesus christ, are Republicans going to shut the government down in an ELECTION YEAR?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:No. Also not true. The main takeaway from the primary debacle is not so much that Nate Silver hosed up, but more that he was attempting the impossible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
What would have if the government was shut down for the election? Like, who counts the votes? Does Obama remain president?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:No, no he isn't. The model was set in stone way before the primaries even started, it is impossible for him to do this. Also that was basically the opposite of what happened with Silver in the primaries. He kept brushing aside the polling to say Trump wouldn't/couldn't win because Literally He's loving Donald Trump, Are You Even Serious. I think he, as a person, overcorrected for calling the primaries incorrectly and now he's way too cautious about it on like, his twitter account, but that has nothing to do with his polling models.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Jacobin ran a good essay on police unions and why they're bad a couple years ago. I mean -- think the larger problem is the culture of policing (see my post earlier from Nolan) and that Police Unions become a reinforcer of those cultural attitudes. I am loathe to ever say that any labor group's union is inherently a bad thing or that we shouldn't allow people engaged in a considerably difficult job to collectively bargain for their rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
lozzle posted:The main takeaway from the primary debacle is not so much that Nate Silver hosed up, but more that he was attempting the impossible. Yes, this is true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
lozzle posted:The main takeaway from the primary debacle is not so much that Nate Silver hosed up, but more that he was attempting the impossible. Agreed. I think the lesson to learn from the primary debacle is that the primaries, just like the NFL are so beset by random, high-variance data with very few observations to train your model off of that it's impossible to make a good model.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
edit: double post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I mean -- think the larger problem is the culture of policing (see my post earlier from Nolan) and that Police Unions become a reinforcer of those cultural attitudes. I am loathe to ever say that any labor group's union is inherently a bad thing or that we shouldn't allow people engaged in a considerably difficult job to collectively bargain for their rights. Bookmarked to read this evening, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:I dislike Wang's model because it doesn't allow for enough variance or the polls to just straight up be off. I still look at it (and the NYTimes and 538) but I think 538's is best, then NYTimes and then Sam Wang. The polls in aggregate in presidential years have historically not really been off, as far as I understand it. I don't see any reason not to assume they're accurate. lozzle posted:The punditry is wholly separate from the model. His model is full of punditry. Ranking the different polls, assigning them different weights, adjusting their results based on trendlines, etc etc. It's full of juice. Edit: Also he has some special sauce that he doesn't reveal in it, as well. Sam Wang's model is open source on his web site. Lemming fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Don't the Republicans tank in favorability even further for a short time every time they shut down the government, saved only by the fact that they usually do it too far from an election for it to be remembered?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
FL AG: I didn't return Trump's donation because then it would look like a bribe...so instead I kept it.  Pam Bondi posted:“If I had returned it you would have reported ‘Bondi accepted a bribe, got caught and returned it.’ That's how the reporting goes,” Bondi said. “And so, no, there was nothing improper about it. So there was no reason to return it.” http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/09/trump-did-not-get-a-pass-defiant-bondi-says-of-fraud-case-105621#ixzz4KnsFdB5e Lemming posted:The polls in aggregate in presidential years have historically not really been off, as far as I understand it. I don't see any reason not to assume they're accurate. If the 2008 crash taught us nothing else, I hope it would have taught people to always allow your model to veer off into the tails, because sometimes your inputs do end up being bad or skewed and if your model is too strict it won't allow that kind of variation to occur. I mean, ultimately we're circumcising mosquitoes here because the differences between Nate's model and Sam's model only come into play in some edge cases. axeil fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Sep 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
axeil posted:FL AG: I didn't return Trump's donation because then it would look like a bribe...so instead I kept it. That, uh, seems like the worst reasoning possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
The other problem is that folks always treat workers and the unions that represent them as two separate and different entities. Police Unions are lovely because a police union is a union of people employed as police officers. If you have proper oversight and whatnot of the police, then the unions will also change.Lemming posted:His model is full of punditry. Ranking the different polls, assigning them different weights, adjusting their results based on trendlines, etc etc. It's full of juice. This isn't done in an arbitrary manner, and he was able to smoke out a handful of pollsters who were faking their results this way. That's pretty much the exact opposite of the sort of "from the gut" punditry you're complaining about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Jesus christ, are Republicans going to shut the government down in an ELECTION YEAR? I don't think it's a conscious choice that some terrible Republican strategists are making for the party. They're just incapable of carrying out the basic functions of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:FL AG: I didn't return Trump's donation because then it would look like a bribe...so instead I kept it. I haven't heard much about this Pam Bondi, but everything I have read coming from her makes her sound exceptionally stupid. It almost seems like she's a hack who's a political appointment and not qualified at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:That, uh, seems like the worst reasoning possible. Which in turn seems to be Bondi's greatest strength, she's really quite spectacularly bad at politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I mean there's a large chance it won't go anywhere because A: She's not a Clinton and B: Trump voters don't give a gently caress about his massive, blatant corruption and ill dealings, but christ. If this was normal it would've been a terrible idea on her part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Lemming posted:His model is full of punditry. Ranking the different polls, assigning them different weights, adjusting their results based on trendlines, etc etc. It's full of juice. This is something all statistical modelers have to do. Deciding that all polls are created equal and should have the same weight is no less punditry than deciding they are different and should have different weights. Hint: it's not punditry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
dicks assassin posted:What would have if the government was shut down for the election? Like, who counts the votes? Does Obama remain president? Voting is run by the states (and usually smaller units thereof), so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Someone post the early voting data from NC that shows a slight uptick in absentee ballots from Democrats compared to 2016 but also shows a massive increase in ballots for independents, and you can guess who they're voting for. Many, many people registered as independents this year to be able to vote in the primary of their choice in NC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
lozzle posted:This is something all statistical modelers have to do. Deciding that all polls are created equal and should have the same weight is no less punditry than deciding they are different and should have different weights. Hint: it's not punditry. Injecting your own bias into it is more a risk than not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Guys, I'm not sure Trump bribed Pam Bondi. That would imply the cheap-rear end motherfucker actually pays people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
The tips are touching on the Now-Cast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Injecting your own bias into it is more a risk than not doing that. It's based on methodology, not results, isn't it? It might be punditry about STATISTICS, but it isn't punditry about POLITICS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Guys, I'm not sure Trump bribed Pam Bondi. The Trump Foundation is funded with other peoples' money, so Trump is probably fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
^^^ Dr Christmas posted:Guys, I'm not sure Trump bribed Pam Bondi. She was paid with Trump Foundation money, which all came from non-Trump donors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:28
|
|