|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Nate's model is not designed to create drama. Nate's model is just his best attempt to quantify how he thinks the election will go statistically. Yeah he was really pushing the horserace narrative on his podcast while simultaneously saying that the numbers look just like 2012, I think he's just desperate for more attention.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Nate's model is not designed to create drama. Nate's model is just his best attempt to quantify how he thinks the election will go statistically. That's fair. My opinion of him has dropped the more and more clickbaity his articles have become.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Something is hosed in Silver's model though. Uncertainty should be narrowing this late into the cycle, but his model is sticking around the 'polls from 4 months out' levels. I think he just is figuring much higher uncertainty than other pollsters I am not sure why. Could be Shook Nate, but I find that meme kind of obnoxious
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Is it just me or has Trump drastically cut down on tweeting? It seems like the debate was the last source we've had of his crazy bullshit instead of the steady trickle we'd been enjoying. I'm pretty sure Kellyanne or someone has the phone on lockdown
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Something is hosed in Silver's model though. Uncertainty should be narrowing this late into the cycle, but his model is sticking around the 'polls from 4 months out' levels. It's the relative number of undecideds, which instead of taking as a sign of an electorate that is sick of the entire mess, he takes as a sign that one could have a massive shift at any moment, I think. I think he also said it made him generally think the polls might be less accurate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Covok posted:Remember, the scarier the model and the scarier the headlines, the more clicks you get. Nate's model is fine and was set months before the election season even began. It's just naturally more conservative than other models. The headlines and editorializing is obnoxious, sure, but there's nothing wrong with a model that has a high degree of uncertainty, similar to how there's nothing wrong with a model with a very low degree of uncertainty (PEC) Dick Trauma posted:Is it just me or has Trump drastically cut down on tweeting? It seems like the debate was the last source we've had of his crazy bullshit instead of the steady trickle we'd been enjoying. He's doing like three rallies a day or something, he probably has no time to do anything between hollering on stage like a gibbering man-ape and flying back to New York to sleep for thirty minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Wait, we can win WITHOUT NC, FL, or OH? CO, VA, PA, and NH, along with the other almost certain democratic states, gets us to 270. (Though there's some question how certain WI actually is). And each of those have pretty much been thought to be out of reach for Trump for months now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Did you think the US and EU intervention in Ukraine to topple their pro Russian government was going to be forgotten? Are...are you really excusing an invasion and annexation of a soverign nation? The involvement of the U.S. and E.U. was garbage, but so apparently was the election they had. If we had pulled a U.S. military Regime Change, you might have a point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yeah he was really pushing the horserace narrative on his podcast while simultaneously saying that the numbers look just like 2012, I think he's just desperate for more attention. The part I really lost respect for him the other day when he wrote an article "Chance of electoral/popular vote split growing" and then showed the data which said there was a 10% Who writes an entire article about a 10% chance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Its important to note that Nate and Wang are working from wildly different base assumptions If your money is really on Wang there is a lot of profit you can make on predictit right now - if you think Trump's chances are really 1-3%, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:On the one hand I believe WI went red in 04, ... E: well, 88. 84 was the last time they voted R. WithoutTheFezOn fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:
Yeah this looks mostly right, except I would probably gray out Florida because who the hell knows what is going on with that state
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Like, to the transgender community of this thread, is there a precedent for some people within the transgender community still having very traditional ideas of gender roles and sexuality and being kind of lovely about them? Its genuinely surprising to me to see a trans person going around calling people "low testosterone beta cucks" and "50 year old bisexuals" because it seems to me like those would be insults and ideas a trans person would be pretty sensitive about. FAUXTON posted:You can be a hosed up person regardless of whether you're trans or not, it isn't the trans part that's a problem. It's just strange because she's backing someone who sees her as somewhere between "abomination" and "child predator" but people vote themselves into a hole all the time. In her case, she's a transgender person with a hosed up view of the world rather than cis. To be fair, the whole "low T beta cuck" comment sort of broke my brain. Like, i spent a lot of time and money and hoop jumping through getting my T this low. Until she said she was a trans woman I assumed she was a trans guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Fangz posted:If your money is really on Wang there is a lot of profit you can make on predictit right now - if you think Trump's chances are really 1-3%, I mean. not a lot of money you can make on picking the obvious winner actually
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Are...are you really excusing an invasion and annexation of a soverign nation? The involvement of the U.S. and E.U. was garbage, but so apparently was the election they had. If we had pulled a U.S. military Regime Change, you might have a point. Involvement of US and EU, BTW, was trying to keep the regime he claimed they overthrew in power for another year. Edit: mostly EU, who love nothing more than hypocritical face-saving "deals".
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I never called for a cold war, don't make poo poo up. Guy Goodbody posted:We totally should go to war with Russia, btw Guy Goodbody posted:I am unironically pro-war with russia Guy Goodbody posted:I never said it would be fun. But when a country threatens our sovereignty, they don't get to keep theirs
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Nope, blue since 1984. D'oh. Well good for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Economic sanctions, I would assume, but you can't divide communication up into "essential" and "non-essential," that's neither how culture nor communication works. I can't speak to the effectiveness or use of economic sanctions. I don't know a thing about it. Don't economic sanctions just hurt the civilians in the sanctioned country, not the rulers? FactsAreUseless posted:This is true. You called for a hot war. Yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I never called for a cold war, don't make poo poo up. Yeah I'm pretty sure what you were calling for would have led to a thermonuclearly hot war pretty quickly tbf
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Is it just me or has Trump drastically cut down on tweeting? It seems like the debate was the last source we've had of his crazy bullshit instead of the steady trickle we'd been enjoying. In addition to the solid points so far, Hillary's campaign started that Troll Trump website that automatically collects donations whenever Trump tweets. Posting from phone, don't have a link handy, but it's a funny and well made site that may have gotten his attention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Don't economic sanctions just hurt the civilians in the sanctioned country, not the rulers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:
Yeah, I'm calling this one. Just maybe minus Florida. I guess Florida will always be a coin-toss. Still, I never quite realized just how much the EC favors the dems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Don't economic sanctions just hurt the civilians in the sanctioned country, not the rulers? Yeah basically the idea is the people get so poor and angry they topple their leaders
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Don't economic sanctions just hurt the civilians in the sanctioned country, not the rulers? Well, it depends. A lot of current US sanctions on Russia are of the "2nd-rate officials can't vacation in the West" variety. Which do hurt the elite, but they're too toothless to hurt the actual elite. Some stuff, like say, banning sales of critical weapon components to Russia can indeed hurt the civilians, since it may endanger their jobs in defense industries. (As would genuine economic stuff dealing with things like financing).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Still, I never quite realized just how much the EC favors the dems. Its where "Post the Map" comes from
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
But I can tell you this: going to war with Russia is the stupidest idea anyone has ever proposed in one of these threads, and that includes all the other ideas I've made fun of people for having, and I will once again quote the following:FactsAreUseless posted:We've found him... the dumbest man alive! The legends were true, it's Jumpin' Jingo Jones the big stupid loving idiot! Huzzah for today!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Most Trump victory maps I've seen have him getting Michigan and/ or Wisconsin. Wisconsin went red last in 1984.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah basically the idea is the people get so poor and angry they topple their leaders Of course, when people get poor and angry you can never tell what they'll do, just that it'll probably be bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Well, it depends. A lot of current US sanctions on Russia are of the "2nd-rate officials can't vacation in the West" variety. Which do hurt the elite, but they're too toothless to hurt the actual elite. Didn't the sanctions against Iraq mean that they basically couldn't get modern medical equipment? Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah basically the idea is the people get so poor and angry they topple their leaders What's the success rate on that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah basically the idea is the people get so poor and angry they topple their leaders So basically my dumb idea, but with a heaping dose of inflicted poverty on top. That is pretty much the second worst option. War being the absolute worst of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:What's the success rate on that? Better than nuclear war
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Also, isn't some of the uncertainty in Nate's model from the fact that he assumes if you're off in one state, you'll be off in related states, so anything being within margin of error is unnerving to the model's simulations?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Isn't going after the finances of the elite reasonably safe and effective?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Didn't the sanctions against Iraq mean that they basically couldn't get modern medical equipment? Not sure, but one thing that's definitely tricky is that a lot of stuff is dual-use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Why would Bloomberg have got any votes at all? Only New Yorkers know who he is, and they aren't too positive about him either. He's too liberal for the Republicans and too conservative for the Democrats. You don't think in an election between an avowed socialist and a rapist people would flock to a moderate option? Bloomberg would have at the very least made NY close and may have been able to win CT because unlike those two, he would've been able to appeal to moderate Dems and Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Sincere question: how is the EC stacked towards Democrats? Gore won the popular vote by a half a million vote margin and still lost the EC (pretend he actually lost Florida by a little bit instead of won by a little bit, that could have gone either way) Have demographics just shifted that much?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
ARE YOU loving KIDDING ME!? http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13489510/fbi-clinton-foundation Just. Holy poo poo, fire Comley. I don't care if it makes Clinton look bad at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah basically the idea is the people get so poor and angry they topple their leaders Sometimes yes sometimes no. In Cuba that was probably the intention but if never really played out. In Iran, it just succeeded in getting the government to play ball in multilateral negotiations on their nuclear capacity
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:But I can tell you this: going to war with Russia is the stupidest idea anyone has ever proposed in one of these threads, and that includes all the other ideas I've made fun of people for having, and I will once again quote the following: The only argument against it that anyone has put forward was just this
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:Isn't going after the finances of the elite reasonably safe and effective? Yeah, but that may involve going after finances of their kids, which is just uncouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:48
|
|