Mel Mudkiper posted:

Mendrian posted:

P.sure some people think a relatively benign green/white cup symbolizing unity is somehow a hidden message of Islamic takeover.

ImpAtom posted:

A major problem with politics, and one that liberals and leftists are not immune to, is that we get into the attitude of 'sports teams.' Rather than genuinely considering the idea of each individual actor it becomes "our guy is winning!" And like a lot of sports fans people are okay with their guy winning through iffy means as long as he wins and are willing to downplay their flaws. (And again, this isn't exclusively conservatives.) With an election this heated and this intense people are getting crazier and crazier and are okay with ANYTHING winning as long as it does. To some degree this is the same thing that feeds the "Trump totally has an underage sex tape where he shouts racial slurs" mindset, which is only meaningfully different from a Michelle Obama Whitey Tape insomuch as Trump is more believable as having actually done it. (And I'd say 'even that is leftist bias' but I think it's pretty unobjectionable to say that Trump doing something skeevy is more believable than Michelle Obama going on a whitey rant.)

theflyingorc posted:

The question is - how do you call Nate Silver "wrong"?

The only way you can prove that a probability distribution is right or wrong is to run it thousands of times and noting that it roughly converges to the point you set it at. You can't run iterations of an election.

Chexoid posted:

Starbucks is taking heat literally because they said Racism was Bad.

freckle posted:

Not unless he calls for her to be harmed.

chumbler posted:

So how much should I be arzying today?

axeil posted:

Well it's pretty easy to prove Sam Wang wrong. If it's a 99% chance to win and it ends up coming down to the wire it probably wasn't a 99% chance. It's why I don't like Wang's model, he doesn't allow for enough uncertainty.

Phone posted:

Not all racists are racist. #notallracists

ImpAtom posted:

A major problem with politics, and one that liberals and leftists are not immune to, is that we get into the attitude of 'sports teams.' Rather than genuinely considering the idea of each individual actor it becomes "our guy is winning!" And like a lot of sports fans people are okay with their guy winning through iffy means as long as he wins and are willing to downplay their flaws. (And again, this isn't exclusively conservatives.) With an election this heated and this intense people are getting crazier and crazier and are okay with ANYTHING winning as long as it does. To some degree this is the same thing that feeds the "Trump totally has an underage sex tape where he shouts racial slurs" mindset, which is only meaningfully different from a Michelle Obama Whitey Tape insomuch as Trump is more believable as having actually done it. (And I'd say 'even that is leftist bias' but I think it's pretty unobjectionable to say that Trump doing something skeevy is more believable than Michelle Obama going on a whitey rant.)

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Feingold has consistently not performed well. Bill Nelson will win easily in Florida, Brown will get some lovely challenger but likely win unless it's John Kasich.

axeil posted:

Well it's pretty easy to prove Sam Wang wrong. If it's a 99% chance to win and it ends up coming down to the wire it probably wasn't a 99% chance. It's why I don't like Wang's model, he doesn't allow for enough uncertainty.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

A major problem with people who use the "sports team" metaphor is that politics really is like a sports team insofar as a) you should root for any Democrat over any Republican because they determine House Speaker/Senate Majority Leader and b) if you lose it doesn't matter how good you were

axeil posted:

Well it's pretty easy to prove Sam Wang wrong. If it's a 99% chance to win and it ends up coming down to the wire it probably wasn't a 99% chance.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

How the hell does Nate justify having Clinton's odds at <70% when her winning every state where she has at least a 70% chance gives here 272 EVs?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

A major problem with people who use the "sports team" metaphor is that politics really is like a sports team insofar as a) you should root for any Democrat over any Republican because they determine House Speaker/Senate Majority Leader and b) if you lose it doesn't matter how good you were

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

How the hell does Nate justify having Clinton's odds at <70% when her winning every state where she has at least a 70% chance gives here 272 EVs?

WampaLord posted:

What if all the polls are wrong?!?

quote:

Mr. James Comey

FBI Director

November 2, 2016

I am the 15-year-old (now 16) who was the victim of Anthony Weiner. I now add you to the list of people who have victimized me. I told my story originally to protect other young girls that might be a victim of online predators.

Your letter to Congress has now brought this whole matter back into the media spotlight. Not even 10 minutes after being forensically interviewed with the FBI for seven hours, I received a phone call from a REPORTER asking for a statement. Why didn’t you communicate with the local FBI agents that I had just spoken to? They could have scheduled our interview sooner or scheduled a time to interview me later, or change locations of the interview. My neighborhood has been canvassed by reporters asking for details about me.
In your letter, you chose to use a vague approach, meaning the media had to keep searching to try and find out what evidence you had uncovered and how. Every media outlet from local to national has contacted me and my family to get my “story.” Why couldn’t your letter have waited until after the election, so I would not have to be the center of attention the last week of the election cycle?

In his “cooperation” with you and with his love of the spotlight, Anthony Weiner has given information that led to the media finding me. You have assisted him in further victimizing me on every news outlet. I can only assume that you saw an opportunity for political propaganda.

I thought your job as FBI Director was to protect me. I thought if I cooperated with your investigation, my identity as a minor would be kept secret. That is no longer the case. My family and I are barraged by reporters’ phone calls and emails. I have been even been blamed in a newspaper for causing Donald Trump to now be leading in some polls and costing Hillary the election.

Anthony Weiner is the abuser. Your letter helped that abuse to continue. How can I rebuild my life when you have made finding out my “story” the goal of every reporter? When I meet with my therapist next time, she will already know what we are going to talk about before I get there by reading Friday, October 28th, 2016’s New York Times article.

I may have been Weiner’s victim, but the real story here is that I am a survivor. I am strong, intelligent, and certain that I will come out from under this nightmare, but it will not be as a result of your doing your job to protect me. I hope that by making my letter to you public, you will think about how your actions affect the victims of the crimes you are investigating. The election is important, yes, but what happened to me and how it makes me feel and how others see me, is much more important. It’s time that the FBI Director puts his victims’ rights above political views.

— Girl that lost her faith in America

P.S. To all reporters: AP, FOX, CBS, NBC, and all other media outlets, please respect my position and stop interrupting my life!

weekly font posted:

Nate is

1) Shook
2) A Garbage pundit
3) Does not discriminate about polls that go into his aggregation no matter how trashass they are

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

How the hell does Nate justify having Clinton's odds at <70% when her winning every state where she has at least a 70% chance gives here 272 EVs?

canepazzo posted:

Check this poo poo out:

https://twitter.com/electionsmith/status/793849709295042560

seiferguy posted:

I'm starting to realize the anxiety that everyone is having over a Trump presidency is literally the worst thing. I'm not immune to it. I probably go to fivethirtyeight like 4 times a day.

We probably would be better served by ignoring this and discussing something like video game OSTs.

seiferguy posted:

We probably would be better served by ignoring this and discussing something like video game OSTs.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

How the hell does Nate justify having Clinton's odds at <70% when her winning every state where she has at least a 70% chance gives here 272 EVs?

i am the bird posted:

Supposedly Kasich has no interest returning to DC (unless as president) and he's almost definitely running for president in 2020. Would it look good if he became senator and immediately started a presidential campaign?

But yeah, if he runs then Sherrod is probably toast.

Soothing Vapors posted:

He explained it pretty well on the podcast: uncertainty with regard to the the quality and accuracy of polling data, especially in states like Michigan where there isn't a lot of "high quality polling" (his words).

Or, put more succinctly:

canepazzo posted:

Op...op...oppo?

https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/793880513018785792

large oblate cat posted:

Reminder that this happened yesterday.