|
Supercar Gautier posted:Here's your general, evergreen, all-purpose anti-Arzy when it comes to 538: despite his name recognition, Nate Silver is not the only person doing what he does, and the other aggregators aren't exactly amateurs either. That's not bad. It's how most people are. But it's still a fact. All aggregators somehow assume polling errors. If they didn't, nobody would actually have a percentage, they'd just say "it's gonna be Hillary". What you're probably referring to is the 538 model's assumption that polling errors are correlated across states. This is a very sensible assumption, and rather typical for modern statistics. Your intuition to look at multiple poll aggregators and aggregate them is a good one, but what's with the amateur autopsy of stuff above your pay grade?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure anywhere requires priests or attorneys to be mandated reporters. The seal of the confessional is actually kindof a big deal. I can see priests being allowed to keep actual confessions of a crime, any crime, confidential. What I can't understand is being silent when a child tells you they're being molested in the context of a confession. A good priest should ask the victim's permission to report, perhaps even strongly recommending reporting them and reenforcing that they're safe and they'll be believed if they do, and then work from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Mr.Citrus posted:Anyone else feel super sad that trumps assault accuser decided to not come forward because of death threats? Right here! My wife is taking this very personal. Her interactions with Trump supporters lately have left her felling pretty pessimistic about humanity. I'm the eternal optimist, but days like this really get to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:He actually isn't. If Clinton wins by exactly the margin we expect and exactly the states we expect, that doesn't prove his uncertainty wrong. We'd need a hundred years of elections to have enough data to know that he's being too careful. Protecting his reputation is why some of us suspect he's doing this. True, but people's trust in a given model mostly comes down to optics. If Clinton wins with a comfortable margin, Nate will be known as the guy who underestimated her chances while everyone else was much more confident in her victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Failure to act against something is tacit support of it. loving sending money to it is definitely support of it. When that party literally has a platform of disenfranchisement and opposition of human rights, supporting it is supporting the undermining of democracy and human rights. There's a loving reason Germany's democracy has means to defend itself. It's not that somebody just went there and gave them money out of kindness. Their election office was burnt down. OgreNoah posted:Giving transphobic racists money isn't going high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:To be fair, the spectacle in THIS election is incredibly loving absurd. I've been interested in presidential elections for almost 30 years, and the 2nd-biggest spectacle in that time frame looks quaint now. We're never going to have another one like this, or God at least I hope not. Yeah the first US election I paid attention to was 2000, when the biggest dramas I recall were Al Gore doing that intimidating thing at the debate, and hanging chads. Every election does include spectacle of the rallies and the national conventions though, which are ridiculously over the top from my perspective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
David Duke lost his poo poo when one of the guys in the debate brought up his felony conviction. A clip should pop up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:This would mean Pelosi would be Speaker, Right? You need a majority. If the GOP has the majority, she's not speaker no matter what. It would be like electing the pope, the house would have to vote over and over again until someone gets it. At best, if its clear the GOP is unable to pick anyone without help, the Dems can play kingmaker, and offer to help some moderate Republican become speaker in exchange for some promises on votes and amendments. He'd then have to keep those promises, or the Dems make a motion to vacate the speaker's seat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:People were thinking this when Boehner resigned - it's not going to happen unless the Republican party actually fractures Dear lord let it fracture 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I dont understand the arzying at all. There is absolutely no way trump wins. I'll be doing this if he wins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWfK5JyD2bA
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Just saw an Anti-Hillary NRA ad here in the pivotal swing state of Maryland. The tagline was "Defeat Hillary" not "Vote Trump", which I thought was interesting. It had really bad production values.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wesenzinna/status/793926027722358784 dapl https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/793970491966881792 david duke debate https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/793948758941847552 percentage of early votes versus 2012
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:All aggregators somehow assume polling errors. If they didn't, nobody would actually have a percentage, they'd just say "it's gonna be Hillary". I didn't say anywhere in that post that they don't or shouldn't account for polling error at all. I'm simply saying that Silver is making assumptions other aggregators aren't, a statement that you yourself just supported in your post. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:
I'd really like to see Texas on these lists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:This: "Hey why does everyone walk away disgusted when we ask them to buy us? "Probably the Jews" replies David Duke, with a chorus of 20000 people PenguinKnight fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:True, but people's trust in a given model mostly comes down to optics. If Clinton wins with a comfortable margin, Nate will be known as the guy who underestimated her chances while everyone else was much more confident in her victory. His "fault" is that he is not making a specific prediction. He is saying uncertainty is high. If Clinton wins high, if Trump wins by a bit, both are possible under his model. An upset to his model would be a massive Trump win or an absolute, never heard before Clinton blowout. A 5-point Clinton win, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/793948758941847552 Add indiana is at around 80% for 2012 and on pace to surpass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
cult member at airport posted:https://twitter.com/alexis_levinson/status/793975890065653760 How does a second dude also have David Duke's uniquely hosed up face there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
These trump ads during the world series are loving annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Lol, I just saw an actual Trump ad. Are the world series buys nationwide, or is he honestly trying to win Baltimore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:How does a second dude also have David Duke's uniquely hosed up face there. I love how all the Democrats actually have human faces, the GOP all look like people wearing human skins or trolls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
skylined! posted:These trump ads during the world series are loving annoying. Mute button is going to get some work for the next 3 hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Lol, I just saw an actual Trump ad. Are the world series buys nationwide, or is he honestly trying to win Baltimore? I think it's a nationwide NRA buy for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:I love how all the Democrats actually have human faces, the GOP all look like people wearing human skins or trolls. not so sure. Campbell looks like a walking beet, there
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Nate Silver is part of the Lügenpresse establishment - WAY too easy on Trump. I hope Hillary throws Nate in prison
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/793969928516694016 https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/793974391646355457
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
cult member at airport posted:https://twitter.com/alexis_levinson/status/793975890065653760 I am not a white supremacist says the man who quoted a Wyatt Mann comic in response to a picture of a burnt church.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A comfortable margin is absolutely inside the values supported by Nate's model. It's not about statistical rigorisity, it's about public perception. Most people don't care about the underlying assumptions of a model, they just want someone who can correctly identify the winner. Why listen to the guy whose model has high uncertainty when you have another model which shows the same results but with much more confidence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A comfortable margin is absolutely inside the values supported by Nate's model. Yea. Right now, PEC is at Hillary +3.1%, 317 EV. 538 is at... Hillary +3.3%, 296 EV. They're really not particularly far off. Nate, right this instant, has Nevada going Clinton where PEC has it going Trump. 538 has FL going Trump while PEC has it going Clinton. That's pretty much the extent of the difference. It's just that Nate's got a lot more error bar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/793923924321067008 Why does this look painted?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Lol, I just saw an actual Trump ad. Are the world series buys nationwide, or is he honestly trying to win Baltimore? I got the same one on Long Island, so I think it's safe to say it's a national buy Unless Trump has made some serious progress in New York the past couple days 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:It's not about statistical rigorisity, it's about public perception. Most people don't care about the underlying assumptions of a model, they just want someone who can correctly identify the winner. Why listen to the guy whose model has high uncertainty when you have another model which shows the same results but with much more confidence? Mukaikubo posted:Yea. Right now, PEC is at Hillary +3.1%, 317 EV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:In principle yes, though in the long run, you want somebody who is calibrated well. By your own admission, you don't know that it is calibrated well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Iodised QQ posted:I got the same one on Long Island, so I think it's safe to say it's a national buy I'd like to think that since he's stiffing his internal pollsters, they've started to feed him hilariously wrong poll results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Lol, I just saw an actual Trump ad. Are the world series buys nationwide, or is he honestly trying to win Baltimore? It has to be nationwide, I've been seeing ads like that in Boston.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:In principle yes, though in the long run, you want somebody who is calibrated well. Sure, but with elections only happening every four years and so many factors changing in the interim, identifying the best model is no easy feat. Maybe Nate's assumptions are the most accurate ones. Or maybe Wang is right and presidential elections are actually very stable because they mostly come down to fundamentals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Why does this look painted? It has excellent composition with well placed expressions and focal points of interest. There's a story going on in every section and area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 02:00
|
|