|
canepazzo posted:The Pope is woke: Eat the bait, Donald! I dare you to eat the bait! That guy thinks he's better than you! I bet you can't sleep well until you defeated him on twitter.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
the donald cannot hope to contend with the vatican a place more gilded in garish dressings than his hotels seriously though St. Peter's Baldachin is loving sweet in a "godddamn money buys nice poo poo" kinda way
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Well she's secured my vote. Again. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Argas posted:Tell me about it, I'm a conflicted fan of Brandon Sanderson. Many Republicans are voting for Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
It's almost too difficult to keep up with all the sidelined memes of this election. I had completely forgot about the taco trucks thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Huh, He's embracing it. Every time I actually hear something about him, I start to respect him more. That annoys me to no end. I seriously wonder if he'll be an option in 2020/2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Serious question: why don't more people vote by mail? I realize some states require justification, but I know Nevada isn't one of them and all those people voting at 10PM on the last day of "early" voting makes me wonder. While I've ever had any lines early voting in Nevada, voting by mail this time was even easier and I can see myself emailing the county for mail in ballots on the future. And I know Californians are spoiled with a perpetual mail-in ballot system that just keeps you permanently on the list so long as you keep voting and mailing it back; which is part of the reason why California polling places are generally accessible. (Let me tell you before 2000 it wasn't always used to be as easy as the CA Whitey McWhiterton in the NYT's suppression game has it) With all this election observer intimidation Bullshit, it seems expanding access to mail in ballots and making people aware of their existence should be a priority when Democrats get control of a state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
lol Paul Ryan is pathetic https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/794984263661867008 https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/794984499713101824 https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/794985445079785472
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Serious question: why don't more people vote by mail? It really depends on what sorts of barriers that individual states put on mail-in ballots. They will be more and more common when the country is not suffering in a power struggle between a party that wants everyone to vote and wants to make voting easier, and a party that would die if voting was made substantially easier so they do everything in their power to suppress voter turnout, because then there will be a largescale or total federal implementation of things like Colorado's mail ballots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/immolations/status/794740487613726720 Pretty spot on
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if a big reason that Nate's model doesn't give big margins to the predicted winner is to avoid egg on his face when some of his predictions don't come to pass. His livelihood and his brand are tied up in his predictions and the public's perceptions of his accuracy. He'll get credit for a correct win prediction regardless of how strongly that prediction was stated ("I predicted xyz would win (55% chance) and it happened, aren't I awesome?"), but his ability to deflect incorrect predictions is proportional to how much uncertainty there is in his model. In the above case, he can "well abc had a 45% chance under the model". This is much harder to do with a "model predicts 99% chance of xyz victory" if the outcome is wrong. In terms of his brand, it makes sense that he'd want a model that never claims to be too certain, and it's easy to rationalize away for other reasons that may or may not be valid ("that's to account for if the polls are drastically completely wrong! Nevermind that the entire thing is pretty much based on polls to begin with..."). It's hard to fault him for this in a way, since the public has a terrible understanding of statistics and probability. The reason I'm skeptical of Nate's claims about why his model is uncertain is because the individual state predictions and their uncertainty are not consistent with his overall election result certainty. If his model is using a "gently caress what if the polls are really wrong?" factor, that should be incorporated into his state level certainty predictions too, and it's hard to see how those state level uncertainties are compatible with his overall election certainty. That said, he's admittedly got some cover here, since a big part of his model secret sauce is supposedly correlation between states, which could definitely induce this kind of fuckery. But it would have to be an absurdly impactful factor in his model for this to happen, which just seems unreasonable. In contrast, someone like Princeton Professor Sam Wang PhD (who it must be emphasized has significantly, astronomically greater expertise in statistics, probability and modelling than Nate Silver, BA Economics, will ever have) has a lot less riding on the perceptions of his election predictions. He's less well known in the general public, and the election work is unrelated to his larger academic work in neuroscience. Regardless, his models are open-source (and therefore subject to criticism and feedback), whereas Nate's are not. Anyone know anything about Harry Enten's background? Some googling doesn't really tell me much. He's also being proclaimed as a wunderkind, does he at least have a stat heavy PhD, or is he another BA who's somehow convinced the pundit world of his brilliance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:He's becoming aware. So in another timeline we are not a part of, McMullin gets groomed for 2020/24, right? He's calm, clean-cut and politely religious, and is not only free of Trump stench, but the tea party as well. He'd be easy to sell as a clean slate for traditional-conservatism to the people mourning the terrible direction the GOP has gone over the past decade. In our timeline I don't think the GOP will have the nerve to clean house after this election and will take their wins in '18 as an excuse to keep doing the exact same poo poo; they'll just get torn up by their primary yet again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:I seriously wonder if he'll be an option in 2020/2024. Absolutely not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Kavros posted:It really depends on what sorts of barriers that individual states put on mail-in ballots. They will be more and more common when the country is not suffering in a power struggle between a party that wants everyone to vote and wants to make voting easier, and a party that would die if voting was made substantially easier so they do everything in their power to suppress voter turnout, because then there will be a largescale or total federal implementation of things like Colorado's mail ballots. It still surprises me that not all states allow for no-excuse early voting. And that of the states that do offer it that not all of them allow it on the weekends.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Kavros posted:It really depends on what sorts of barriers that individual states put on mail-in ballots. They will be more and more common when the country is not suffering in a power struggle I understand this, but in the past 20 years it seems that Democrats have at least briefly amassed enough power in states like MA, MI, DE, etc that have no early voting of any kind and apparently require everyone to line up in long lines at polling places on Election Day and deal with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
What is the most feasible way to fix the GOP primary? Could the party set up a limit on how many candidates are allowed to run and force them to apply to get in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Serious question: why don't more people vote by mail? I realize some states require justification, but I know Nevada isn't one of them and all those people voting at 10PM on the last day of "early" voting makes me wonder. While I've ever had any lines early voting in Nevada, voting by mail this time was even easier and I can see myself emailing the county for mail in ballots on the future. And I know Californians are spoiled with a perpetual mail-in ballot system that just keeps you permanently on the list so long as you keep voting and mailing it back; which is part of the reason why California polling places are generally accessible. (Let me tell you before 2000 it wasn't always used to be as easy as the CA Whitey McWhiterton in the NYT's suppression game has it) Because the four people in Esmerelda County who vote need an excuse to leave their homes and socialize with living breathing humans at least once per year. This also serves as a "did that guy die?" check.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:What is the most feasible way to fix the GOP primary?  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Serious question: why don't more people vote by mail? I'd always wondered the same thing until I looked at this map: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:What is the most feasible way to fix the GOP primary? Could the party set up a limit on how many candidates are allowed to run and force them to apply to get in? It depends on exactly what it is you're trying to "fix". Was it the sheer number of people running? Because that happened to the Democrats in 2004 and 2008, it's just that people like Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun dropped out early enough. Fueled by the money we have after Citizens United, GOP 16 had campaigns wasting enormous amounts of money to stay in well past their expiration date. Jeb! ran a campaign that was like if Wesley Clark had a bazillionaire spending $1400 on every single vote he received.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:51
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:
That would be registered Democrat Chris Wallace.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:lol Paul Ryan is pathetic Gotta love the courage of Paul Ryan's convictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:That would be registered Democrat Chris Wallace. Huh, I didn't know that. Is he one of those registered democrats which haven't voted D in several decades? Obviously, he's kind of a partisan hack, which is no surprise considering where he works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Huh, I didn't know that. Is he one of those registered democrats which haven't voted D in several decades? Obviously, he's kind of a partisan hack, which is no surprise considering where he works. Someone has to buy the "[opposite party] for [candidate]" Merch
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
That's ... actually really impressive. He should sing in a Death Metal band and/or do voices for Tolkien movies/Blizzard games. Just replace "Hillary" with "Azeroth" or however the demons in Warcraft are called.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:It depends on exactly what it is you're trying to "fix". Was it the sheer number of people running? Because that happened to the Democrats in 2004 and 2008, it's just that people like Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun dropped out early enough. Fueled by the money we have after Citizens United, GOP 16 had campaigns wasting enormous amounts of money to stay in well past their expiration date. Jeb! ran a campaign that was like if Wesley Clark had a bazillionaire spending $1400 on every single vote he received. Obama would've never won if a sheer amount of candidates didn't run in 2004 and 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Color Gray posted:I'd always wondered the same thing until I looked at this map: You're missing my point. I saw the same map on Wikipedia. But why do states like Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island not have no excuse vote by mail? Democrats have held a majority of the power in these states for some time. I can understand why Kentucky and Alabama have no vote by mail, they want everyone to have to pass through the armed militia's Voter Integrity Checkpoints etc, but Democrats should pushed for states to enable mail in voting with no excuse when they have the power. I mean Michigan is one of those states with enough racial divisions that mail-in ballots seem like they should be a priority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I see Paul Ryan attempted to pull a Ted Cruz but Trump didn't give him the chance
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's ... actually really impressive. He should sing in a Death Metal band and/or do voices for Tolkien movies/Blizzard games. He has such a weird voice. I look at his face and the lip movement matches, but it doesn't sound like it's actually coming from a human, and for some reason it sounds as if it comes from a different direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I see Paul Ryan attempted to pull a Ted Cruz but Trump didn't give him the chance Through luck rather than judgement Ryan has managed to avoid being photographed with Trump. Something he's likely to be glad about in future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
why the gently caress would ryan say that poo poo now when it's so definitely over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Arcanen posted:I wouldn't be surprised if a big reason that Nate's model doesn't give big margins to the predicted winner is to avoid egg on his face when some of his predictions don't come to pass. His livelihood and his brand are tied up in his predictions and the public's perceptions of his accuracy. He'll get credit for a correct win prediction regardless of how strongly that prediction was stated ("I predicted xyz would win (55% chance) and it happened, aren't I awesome?"), but his ability to deflect incorrect predictions is proportional to how much uncertainty there is in his model. In the above case, he can "well abc had a 45% chance under the model". This is much harder to do with a "model predicts 99% chance of xyz victory" if the outcome is wrong. What I mean is, it's really comparatively simple to find the best prediction of the vote margin, or if a state is more likely to vote Dem or Rep. Usually, you basically just solve a linear system. What's really hard is to estimate the error/the certainty you should have. This is calibration: you know your best bet is for a popular vote margin of 3.0%. But how unlikely are 6%? 12%? -2%? These can be terribly complicated, because errors are really horrible things depending on what your samples are like. Statistics is the science of assigning uncertainty. Arcanen posted:The reason I'm skeptical of Nate's claims about why his model is uncertain is because the individual state predictions and their uncertainty are not consistent with his overall election result certainty. (I'm not a statistician, just a neuroscientist.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Wyld Thang posted:Obama would've never won if a sheer amount of candidates didn't run in 2004 and 2008. Obama's early wins were the result of an incredible ground game of energized volunteers plus the help of labor unions in the early caucus states. There's also possibly the theory that people in Iowa, even a sample of all Democrats, really fuckin' hate Hillary Clinton since she placed third behind Obama and Edwards in 08 and virtually tied with Sanders in 16.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why the gently caress would ryan say that poo poo now when it's so definitely over. "Trump only lost because Ryan didn't support him enough! Drain the Ryan!" (That looks better in text, but is kind of annoying to pronounce.) Of course this will happen anyway. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why the gently caress would ryan say that poo poo now when it's so definitely over. He's probably trying to save his speakership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
That's amazing. Also, not wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:09
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why the gently caress would ryan say that poo poo now when it's so definitely over. He doesn't want to lose the Speakers role. cant cook creole bream posted:Huh, I didn't know that. Is he one of those registered democrats which haven't voted D in several decades? Obviously, he's kind of a partisan hack, which is no surprise considering where he works. He hasn't really gone into details about it, which is undrstandable considering where he works, but he's on the record as having voted in Democrat primaries even since he's been at Fox.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:why the gently caress would ryan say that poo poo now when it's so definitely over. Because Ryan loves trolling the gently caress out of Trump, and this was the last opportunity for him to do so. Ryan is very much a libertarian and his party affiliation is like fitting a square peg in a round hole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/794994593574113282 Shook Nate has evolved into proper angry Nate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
canepazzo posted:https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/794994593574113282 To be fair I'd be angry if someone made groundless and false accusations about my professional reputation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:16
|
|