|
Lol @ Trump's pantomime delivery "OK I wasn't up to that part yet, but you guys won't shut up until I say it. We're going to Build. A. Great. Wall. And, what...?" Crowd responds "Mexico is gonna pay for it! Woo!" crowd goes wild 
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
Total number of cowboy hats at Wyoming poll: 7. Disappointing Number of independent candidates with super flamboyant names: 1
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Alec Bald Snatch posted:sounds like the title of a lost episode of the three stooges where they travel to indiana to join a businessmans' luncheon Hey mack! Looks likes somebody's got the wool over your eyes! That's no wool, that's a white hood! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Here's a good answer And other ideas about deviations between 538 and other models from someone not affiliated with 538: http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/09/poll-aggregation-fight/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:It makes sense if you understand the methodology. One of 538's core conceits is that state polls don't move independent of one another; all of the states are correlated to some extent. If a bunch of good polls come up for Trump in Georgia and South Carolina, for example, that means he's probably also doing well in North Carolina. I understand I just think it's flawed as hell
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Here's a good answer I should clarify: I know what his assumptions are, I'm just wondering why posters ITT seem to think they're unreasonable or too extreme
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I went on the first day of early voting and it took me about an hour and a half to get through the line. Really? Sucker.  Seriously though, sup GA voter buddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:The Julio-Claudian dynasty is great to read about is why. While Octavian was a fine leader the rest had some problems. I also cannot just believe everything written about them is just Partrician propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
weekly font posted:I understand I just think it's flawed as hell I really don't think this is a key problem, though perhaps 538 assumes too strong a correlation. Polls shouldn't be moving randomly, and if you see 5 states move 2 points towards Clinton after the first debate, you should assume a sixth state with no polling done yet also likely moved that way. Whether the model weights that too heavily or doesn't properly throw out those correlations when actual data comes in, I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Lol @ Trump's pantomime delivery I don't know if Trump genuinely needs to be President to feed his ego or if he's simply satisfied with all the attention from rallies and showmanship. I mean, the guy was a prolific reality TV host...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Which do you think the roadblock is - not understanding the whole "perfect is the enemy of good" thing, not understanding how many people completely lack healthcare access and what that's like, or not knowing what a UHC implementation would actually look like? I think he was swayed by some of my arguments but implementation seems to be his biggest roadblock. Whenever I referenced the way German and Australian systems work, ie basic public healthcare with insurance covering better things, he seemed intrigued. GalacticAcid posted:Ezra Klein's "The Health of Nations" for The American Prospect basically made his name in liberal policy circles and gives a good overview of how policy & outcomes vary by country. It's not a polemic so might not be your best bet if you're looking for talking points, but should be a good starting place. This is helpful, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:I should clarify: I know what his assumptions are, I'm just wondering why posters ITT seem to think they're unreasonable or too extreme Because his model is so far out of whack with the other various polling models. Either they are all wrong, or he is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's weird growing up Jewish, because you learn about a lot of this stuff and your mind is pretty firmly set as "Jews are the underdogs" and then you grow up and realize plucky li'l Israel is doing some terrible poo poo too and now you don't know how to feel. To some extent this is part of the American experience. The underdog myth is woven into our cultural identity from a young age; American history education strongly pushes the idea of America as a plucky, come-from-behind winner against bigger, badder enemies (first Britain, then the Confederacy, Germany, the USSR, and Islamic terrorism.) Even curbstomps like the Spanish-American war get twisted to fit into this broader narrative: we weren't just picking on outmatched and outgunned Spain, it was really about us trying to compete with the great imperial powers like France and the UK!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I don't know if Trump genuinely needs to be President to feed his ego or if he's simply satisfied with all the attention from rallies and showmanship. Either way, I really hope his life is all downhill from here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:PRESIDENT TRUMP FINAL ADVISORY NUMBER 666 This reads like an excerpt from an SCP Project entry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I think one of the big things is the adjustment for house effect. Stats-knowers seem to think that overcompensates and adds noise to the data You see, if we just unshook this Nate then it's clear that...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Of course, because what's the point of democratic socialist super state if you don't spend your hard earned dollars on social programs, education, and infrastructure. And robot cars. Ok, so why don't we spend the money from our shares of stock in USCorp in labor protections and welfare? Tariffs are good for protecting industries vital to some aspect of security-we see this in food security, fuel production in some regards, and until fairly recently in our history steel for the military. But as a means of protecting labor, it's a cop out for not enacting substantive domestic policy. Protectionism is on the whole dumb, unless you are a LDC, and even then results are mixed: see ISI vs. EOI E: Mr. Belding posted:Furthermore, it's clear that these tariffs are likely not high enough as we have far too many takers (companies are happy to make what they used to make here overseas and then reimport). I think it's a pretty simple analysis to determine that we are undercharging. How does that not equal raise all tariffs, btw? I think the problem may be you, friend. stone cold fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Gunder posted:This reads like an excerpt from an SCP Project entry. Trump will be Trump's Katrina.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:PRESIDENT TRUMP FINAL ADVISORY NUMBER 666 same
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
I still can't believe that things tightened this much, but I'm glad that Clinton never took the win for granted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:To be fair, the Jewish population kind of brought it onto themselves by not acquiescing and paying lip service to the emperor and calling him divine. It's not like the Romans were intolerant of other religions. Everything about this statement made me sad.  quote:It's weird growing up Jewish, because you learn about a lot of this stuff and your mind is pretty firmly set as "Jews are the underdogs" and then you grow up and realize plucky li'l Israel is doing some terrible poo poo too and now you don't know how to feel. I remember the moment when I lost my respect for Israel. Back in 2013 it came to light that Ethiopian Jews were getting depo shots without their knowledge and against their will in Israel in order to keep them from having children. It struck me hard. The one nation I thought that they at least would reject eugenics and in the end embraced those ideals in a systemic way. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcom...www.google.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:Nah, man. You can't compare Roman slavery to Transatlantic slavery. For one, there was no real racial component to Roman slavery, for another it wasn't chattel slavery. Sex slavery always is awful, though. What? What do you think chattel slavery is? The Roman's owned other people as property, and bought and sold them. They were chattel. And I'm sorry but you can infact compare slavery to other slavery, since they're the same thing. Roman slavery was lovely like transatlantic slavery was lovely. It was an immoral practice that exploited labor and was used to break communities, weaken their cultures, and bring them under the Roman heel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:PRESIDENT TRUMP FINAL ADVISORY NUMBER 666 I like the plot to this new SMT game
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:PRESIDENT TRUMP FINAL ADVISORY NUMBER 666
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
there wolf posted:What? What do you think chattel slavery is? The Roman's owned other people as property, and bought and sold them. They were chattel. And I'm sorry but you can infact compare slavery to other slavery, since they're the same thing. Roman slavery was lovely like transatlantic slavery was lovely. It was an immoral practice that exploited labor and was used to break communities, weaken their cultures, and bring them under the Roman heel. It is possible to say two bad things are different without meaning that one of them isn't actually bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
RVProfootballer posted:I really don't think this is a key problem, though perhaps 538 assumes too strong a correlation. Polls shouldn't be moving randomly, and if you see 5 states move 2 points towards Clinton after the first debate, you should assume a sixth state with no polling done yet also likely moved that way. Whether the model weights that too heavily or doesn't properly throw out those correlations when actual data comes in, I'm not sure. More that I think Nate has no barrier to entry for polls, like other aggregates do. He's letting some real garbage poo poo swing his numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Total number of cowboy hats at Wyoming poll: 7. Disappointing I will forever miss voting against Mike Enzi and John Barasso.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I still can't believe that things tightened this much, but I'm glad that Clinton never took the win for granted. I still think the end result will be Clinton winning by 4% popular vote and that the tightening of these week 0 polls was definitely going to happen as Republicans realized it was the rapist idiot or Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Okay, I just woke up. Can someone give me a short summary of why my Twitter feed has turned into a Tent Revival overnight?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:PRESIDENT TRUMP FINAL ADVISORY NUMBER 666  SPEAKING OF WEATHER SCIENCES AND TRUMP https://twitter.com/activist360/status/794611954681790464  Also, I missed health talk but 6'5 170. Taking up cooking since I've moved to college really helps me be healthy. Health loving rocks
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I think the thing that annoys me the most about Silver's model is that he's still relying strictly on polls. By all accounts Hillary has taken a nearly insurmountable lead in Nevada, but Trump still has a good chance to win it. The GOTV is doing work, but it's all POLLS POLLS POLLS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I will forever miss voting against Mike Enzi and John Barasso. I got to vote against Mike Lee, almost as pointless as voting against those two. I do like that since the Utah Dems realize they have no chance, they nominate people like Misty Snow who follows in the mold of Bernie Sanders and is the first openly trans person to run as a major party Senate candidate
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:I still think the end result will be Clinton winning by 4% popular vote and that the tightening of these week 0 polls was definitely going to happen as Republicans realized it was the rapist idiot or Hillary Clinton. I'm guessing 3-4%, as well, and I really hope that Hispanic voters save the whole drat country like it looks that they will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:I remember the moment when I lost my respect for Israel. Back in 2013 it came to light that Ethiopian Jews were getting depo shots without their knowledge and against their will in Israel in order to keep them from having children. It struck me hard. The one nation I thought that they at least would reject eugenics and in the end embraced those ideals in a systemic way.  Really fuckin' hard to deal with when half of my family has married Israeli, to boot
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:YLLS/W&W used to have an extremely rigid orthodoxy of dumb minimalist workout programs and hardline low-carb or "clean eating" philosophies, that's pretty much entirely dead now though and it's much more sane.  *basically "clean eating" but I was okay with fatty meat as long as it was only every so often because gently caress sometimes you just need a steak
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Because his model is so far out of whack with the other various polling models. Either they are all wrong, or he is. You're neglecting the possibility that they're all wrong!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
The fun part about 538 is his model will favor Hillary and everyone will be all "told you Nate was right  " and completely miss the point that his predictions were rubber banding all over the place while literally every other aggregator came to their conclusion long ago
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Distorted Kiwi posted:Okay, I just woke up. Can someone give me a short summary of why my Twitter feed has turned into a Tent Revival overnight? The Demoncrats have successfully summoned Satan
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Because his model is so far out of whack with the other various polling models. Either they are all wrong, or he is. It's not the case that Silver's model is "out of whack" with the rest of the models. It simply expresses a lot more uncertainty about the outcome, which manifests as a higher probability of winning for the candidate behind in the polls and a lower probability for the candidate out front. Look at the year we just went through. A populist groundswell. Trump. Bernie. Outsiders are in and insiders are out. You've got Emailgate, Russia, Wikileaks, and the Republican smoke machine. A huge demographic split between men and women. Civil war in the Republican Party. Only 80-some-odd percent of Republicans pledging support for the GOP nominee. Not-insignificant support for third parties, including an insurgent conservative in Utah by the name of Evan McMuffin. Two candidates with abysmal favorability ratings. Debatably low enthusiasm on both sides. In times like these, it's probably not a bad idea to err on the side of greater uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ericmichel/status/794569014311723008 loving media shills
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:46
|
|