USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

WampaLord posted:

So I have a question.

If the polls now are full of errors and mistakes with the way they're sampling people, what does that mean for the polls that came out post-DNC showing Clinton up by double digits?

Were those polls also full of bad samples and she was actually kicking even more rear end back then, or did sampling change since then?

They were still in the RV mode without any bothering to do a LV screen.

The sampling itself didn't change. The weighting did.

Which comes back to the central question of "are likely voter models bullshit? Are some bullshit and others not bullshit?" that people are losing their goddamned minds over and finding ways to rationalize away the ones they don't like while ignoring the others.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:15

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

lozzle posted:

Deciding that Nate is the One True Modeler and his model is the correct one, and deciding that Nate is dumb and his model is dumb are both unskewing yes.

The tweet you mentioned wasn't doing that -- it was pointing out that 538 is one model and it shows a different result from anyone else.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:15

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/780423902371651584

In another example of polling being all hosed right now, Clinton is tied in Iowa, which she's been losing for a long time.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:16

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

FairGame posted:

They were still in the RV mode without any bothering to do a LV screen.

The sampling itself didn't change. The weighting did.

Which comes back to the central question of "are likely voter models bullshit? Are some bullshit and others not bullshit?" that people are losing their goddamned minds over and finding ways to rationalize away the ones they don't like while ignoring the others.

Truly we should only focus on polls where Al Gore lost.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:17

canepazzo: May 29, 2006

WampaLord posted:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/780423902371651584

In another example of polling being all hosed right now, Clinton is tied in Iowa, which she's been losing for a long time.

That same poll was Clinton +14 3 months ago.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:17

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

computer parts posted:

Truly we should only focus on polls where Al Gore lost.

oh my god you are so embarrassed about your dumb post take a break, dude

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:17

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

paranoid randroid posted:

we need an aggregator aggregator

new york times does that

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:18

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Polls loving suck and are dumb.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:17

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

canepazzo posted:

That same poll was Clinton +14 3 months ago.

So it's time to Arzy?

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:17

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

FairGame posted:

oh my god you are so embarrassed about your dumb post take a break, dude

Turn on your monitor.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:19

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Luigi Thirty posted:

So it's time to Arzy?

No, Arzy is step one. Now is the time for acceptance.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:19

AhhYes: Dec 1, 2004; * Click *; College Slice

Luigi Thirty posted:

So it's time to Arzy?

Long past time. You've got some catching up to do.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:19

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

canepazzo posted:

That same poll was Clinton +14 3 months ago.

And in the last few weeks, it's been Trump +6 on average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton-5597.html

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:18

CascadeBeta: Feb 14, 2009; by Cyrano4747

Fojar38 posted:

Polls loving suck and are dumb.

Amazingly I agree with the guy with the shut up avatar. Everything has the potential to change tonight, or nothing will change and Hillary will still be on top. I think people are grossly underestimating how badly Trump will do tonight, and even if he doesn't, there's still two more debates he has to not only be competent in but excel in. And as we've seen over and over again, excelling isn't in Trump's vocabulary.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:20

canepazzo: May 29, 2006

WampaLord posted:

And in the last few weeks, it's been Trump +6 on average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_trump_vs_clinton-5597.html

Sorry, I meant that the specific poller's last poll, Loras U, had Clinton +14 3 months ago.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:22

BrainMeats: Aug 20, 2000; We have evolved beyond the need for posting.; Soiled Meat

Minnesota voters, I just did my early in-person absentee this morning and it was super easy. Our state doesn't need any specific reason to do it early and get it done with. Can confirm that Trump did appear on the ballot.

I'm gonna be super embarrassed when the lizard masks come off during the debate tonight and turn my entire world view upside down.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:22

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

canepazzo posted:

Sorry, I meant that the specific poller's last poll, Loras U, had Clinton +14 3 months ago.

Which, if it's like the CNN poll I posted, means they probably changed their LV screen.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:22

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

The tweet you mentioned wasn't doing that -- it was pointing out that 538 is one model and it shows a different result from anyone else.

I wasn't the one who brought up that tweet. I was just making a general statement.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who read that tweet and inferred "well this must mean Nate's model is wrong :downs:

" because some people are apt to think like that)

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:23

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Oh, and in non-election reasons to panic, we're only 5 days away from another government shutdown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/congress-shutdown.html?_r=0

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:23

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

CascadeBeta posted:

Amazingly I agree with the guy with the shut up avatar. Everything has the potential to change tonight, or nothing will change and Hillary will still be on top. I think people are grossly underestimating how badly Trump will do tonight, and even if he doesn't, there's still two more debates he has to not only be competent in but excel in. And as we've seen over and over again, excelling isn't in Trump's vocabulary.

and i think people are grossly overestimating how badly Trump will do tonight. until proven otherwise im assuming that this debate wont change the game in any way, and thats bad for Clinton because she is apparently unable to convince an increasingly large portion of her coalition to care about voting for her

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:23

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Depends what you mean by major city.

D.C. has the second most (Just barely behind the Bay Area) expensive housing in the country. The Average 1 BR in the D.C. Metro area is $2,300 a month.

You can get a 1br in Philly or Wilmington, DE (basically a suburb of Philly) for around $800 a month.

St. Louis and Kansas City have 1Br for around $600 a month.

Detroit is dirt cheap.

Some areas of New Jersey that are 15 minutes from New York are around $900 a month.

Phoenix, AZ is around $900

Des Moines, IA is around $600 for a 1BR.

I'm in Portland so I'd kill for a $900/mo.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:23

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Is there a medicine that puts you in a coma for exactly 44 days?

Asking for a friend

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

computer parts posted:

So people are unskewing by listening to Nate?

No I'm saying that shopping for an aggregator that gives you results you like at any given time, is a good way to have a skewed view of where the race is. Everyone thought polls-only was hot poo poo six weeks ago, or the now-cast ffs. Now it's "oh Nate isn't that great actually". Maybe he's not, but if you're questioning accuracy or methodology at this point in the race I think it's awfully arrogant to think you can do so without your own bias clouding your judgment. Polls-only and PEC continue to be good models. Prediction markets continue to be garbage.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:25

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

CascadeBeta posted:

Amazingly I agree with the guy with the shut up avatar. Everything has the potential to change tonight, or nothing will change and Hillary will still be on top. I think people are grossly underestimating how badly Trump will do tonight, and even if he doesn't, there's still two more debates he has to not only be competent in but excel in. And as we've seen over and over again, excelling isn't in Trump's vocabulary.

Excel's only two syllables, there's a pretty good chance he knows that word. I mean, hell, he used "ultimate" to describe uranium the other day.

Also: short of either candidate making GBS threads themselves completely, debates don't really matter that much. "Proceed, Governor" wasn't the master stroke people think it was. Reagan's "There you go again" was also meaningless.

Or at least, that's the political science literature. Between that and "both sides will run a competent campaign so they offset and can be ignored," maybe this cycle will totally blow up all the literature.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:26

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

CascadeBeta posted:

Amazingly I agree with the guy with the shut up avatar. Everything has the potential to change tonight, or nothing will change and Hillary will still be on top. I think people are grossly underestimating how badly Trump will do tonight, and even if he doesn't, there's still two more debates he has to not only be competent in but excel in. And as we've seen over and over again, excelling isn't in Trump's vocabulary.

I can see one of three things happening tonight:

1. Hillary turbodunks Trump. Like she absolutely eviscerates him, including a "Proceed, Governor" moment. The downside is Trump likely doesn't do debate #2, but is that really a downside when he gets hammered so much that he runs away?
2. Whole thing is a wash. No clear winner, no clear loser. This helps Trump because LOLEXPECTATIONS, but the silver lining is he'll probably do the second debate because he didn't win. This is the most likely scenario
3. Trump wins the debate. Least likely, sure, but 50/50 on debate #2 because he would get high on his success and want to do it again.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:25

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

i dont know how you fail to mobilize young people to vote against a guy who thinks LGBTQ is a kind of barbecue sauce but life and Clinton, uhhhh, find a way

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:26

On Terra Firma: Feb 12, 2008

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Is there a medicine that puts you in a coma for exactly 44 days?

Asking for a friend

Alcohol. Sort of.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:25

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

lozzle posted:

I wasn't the one who brought up that tweet. I was just making a general statement.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who read that tweet and inferred "well this must mean Nate's model is wrong " because some people are apt to think like that)

I think Nate's model is generally being very conservative and I think that people should look at the race and go "it's relatively close."

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:25

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

paranoid randroid posted:

i dont know how you fail to mobilize young people to vote against a guy who thinks LGBTQ is a kind of barbecue sauce but life and Clinton, uhhhh, find a way

I don't want to blame Sanders overdoing his rhetoric but I'm kinda having a hard time not doing that.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:27

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

The ultimate end to this election is Trump losing in a blowout while Nate Silver has given him a 51% chance to win on Election Day.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:26

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

WampaLord posted:

Oh, and in non-election reasons to panic, we're only 5 days away from another government shutdown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/congress-shutdown.html?_r=0

That can't be right, all other issues are on hold for 14 months so that people can focus on the presidential election.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:27

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

FairGame posted:

\
Or at least, that's the political science literature. Between that and "both sides will run a competent campaign so they offset and can be ignored," maybe this cycle will totally blow up all the literature.

Yeah, maybe Al Gore won't predict this election.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:29

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

paranoid randroid posted:

i dont know how you fail to mobilize young people to vote against a guy who thinks LGBTQ is a kind of barbecue sauce but life and Clinton, uhhhh, find a way

Don't worry she'll make the mistake of being either a bitchy harpy or a meek pussy so we can blame her for failing the debates

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:29

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

theflyingorc posted:

I don't want to blame Sanders overdoing his rhetoric but I'm kinda having a hard time not doing that.

If HRC loses the election it's not going to be because of Bernie Sanders. It'll be because old people are the loving worst.\

Won't stop the circular firing squad, I'm sure. But the blame is pointed at completely the wrong group.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:29

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Rebochan posted:

Oh look, it's nerd night for me.

This actually kind of happened, in the mid-2000s with the Hot Coffee blowup in GTA San Andreas.

There's a bunch of news articles from the time covering her announcing wanting to do something about games and poo poo, but in spite of her wanting legislation restricting sales of adult games to minors, I can't find any record of her doing much more than saying "Hey, there ought to be a law," And then... it disappeared like so much steam.

Either someone pointed out the problem with that as a 1st Amendment issue or the media attention died down and she didn't pursue it.

That didn't stop Rockstar from blaming her for the Hot Coffee controversy even though she was rather peripheral to it at best...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-30-who-spilled-hot-coffee

EDIT: Oh look, she did join up with Lieberman try to make it a law...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Frankly the Are Vidjagames assholes are the same people in the alt-right, so Clinton was just ahead of her time

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:30

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

FairGame posted:

If HRC loses the election it's not going to be because of Bernie Sanders. It'll be because old people are the loving worst.\

Won't stop the circular firing squad, I'm sure. But the blame is pointed at completely the wrong group.

Well I mean, Bernie Sanders *is* an old person.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:31

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

One thing interesting about the polls that hasn't been brought up yet is that undecided voters are still way higher at this point than they were in the past. Potentially the debates could help shift these voters to Clinton.

A debate probably won't change anyone who has already picked, but we have a relatively high level of people still on the fence. 1/3 of the nation will be watching tonight. This is going to matter.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:31

canepazzo: May 29, 2006

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/780429417818558464

This one's not too bad. Can't find previous numbers for this poller.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:31

ImpAtom: May 24, 2007

FairGame posted:

If HRC loses the election it's not going to be because of Bernie Sanders. It'll be because old people are the loving worst.\

Won't stop the circular firing squad, I'm sure. But the blame is pointed at completely the wrong group.

Nah. Sanders absolutely deserves some of the blame. It isn't by any means exclusively his fault but he ran an incredibly aggressive campaign but without the ability to walk it back and in doing so he lost control over his messaging. That's a serious problem and a failure on his part.

It isn't entirely his fault but unless Clinton gets blown out (which seems incredibly unlikely) he's going to get the blame if it's even remotely close.

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:15

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Well I mean, Bernie Sanders *is* an old person.

And so is Donald Trump! I think we're on to something. :tinfoil:

# ? Sep 26, 2016 16:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›798 »