|
Jedit posted:And Corbyn should be fighting on that basis: that May has no mandate to broker a deal which takes us out of the single market. This is something the Tories couldn't legitimately protest and would shore up the assertion that Labour want what is best for Britain as well as respecting the will of the people. But he isn't. He's letting her do as she pleases because it's easier. I think even the people who still support Corbyn (including me) would agree that the execution of the whole thing has been handled pretty badly, even if you agree in the principle with "support soft Brexit but hammer the Tories on the details". I think not sounding out the membership first on the impact of a three line whip was a pretty major error.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:09 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:28 |
|
Maybe he had a migraine?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:10 |
|
TinTower posted:I get 18%. Labour are on 30% with Remain voters. You really need to stop quoting "headline" numbers when don't knows are high. This is why so many people misinterpreted key polls in the US election. 18% of remain voters weighted by likelihood excluding WNV/DK isn't the same as 18% of remain voters and carries a much higher margin of error. Nevertheless the Lib Dem strategy is such a success that more remain voters still want to vote Conservative rather than Lib Dem. Edit: lol you couldn't read the headline chart right even. Con is on 30% and Lab 35%.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:17 |
|
Stop pretending you understand what those terms you are using mean.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:23 |
|
The polls in the American election were actually relatively accurate in predicting Clinton's popular vote share.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:26 |
|
Like, let's actually cut through the bullshit here. Dancing around don't knows and likely voter models is unimportant (though you are still doing it laughably wrong). The key question here is actually 'what counts as a successful/failed strategy'? I'm not asking this rhetorically.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:29 |
|
You're a Liberal. If we cut through the bullshit, what's left?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:31 |
|
Saith posted:You're a Liberal. If we cut through the bullshit, what's left? Snarky asides, I guess.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:34 |
|
Fangz posted:Well, like, I said, the fiscal rule stuff. Labour's adopted the position, contrary to all economic sense, that governments need to commit to deficit balancing. I would expect, and most people would red line, that corbyn committs to 75% tax rate on plus 100k well before he even looks at spending cuts
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:40 |
|
Fangz posted:Stop pretending you understand what those terms you are using mean. Go on then, "educate" me this'll be a laugh.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:40 |
|
TinTower posted:The polls in the American election were actually relatively accurate in predicting Clinton's popular vote share. Nationally yes but on on a state level no. The distribution of DKs and their demographics goes a long way to predicting the actual result more accurately.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:42 |
|
if corbyn's support removed immediately from the a50 bill, would it make any difference? would it make any difference to the outcome if he whipped against? If so and only if so can you reasonably say he "propped them up". A rock holding a door open is propping it. If you take the rock away and the door doesnt budge, it wasn't propping it.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:43 |
|
Spangly A posted:if corbyn's support removed immediately from the a50 bill, would it make any difference? I look forward to Labour voting with the government on every bill they can push through, then. This is a pretty poo poo argument whichever way you feel about Labour and Brexit.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:56 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Go on then, "educate" me this'll be a laugh. Lord of the Llamas posted:Nationally yes but on on a state level no. The distribution of DKs and their demographics goes a long way to predicting the actual result more accurately. For a start, what do you mean by this. Or actually, explain what 'margin of error' means to you.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:00 |
|
Private Speech posted:I look forward to Labour voting with the government on every bill they can push through, then. no, we have a pretty poo poo government Fangz posted:For a start, what do you mean by this. undecided voters still vote and massively outnumber the educated. Their likelihood to vote and the constituency they are in, if calculated, combine to form a better reading of the climate than raw decideds. Anyone who has "decided" to be a tory is clearly a loving idiot. Most people just tag along because the tories they know are abrasive loudmouths Fangz posted:For a start, what do you mean by this. are you defending statistical methods that arbitrarily exclude the larger parts of their sample? anyone who would defend government modelling with words that belong in mathematics is dense af Spangly A fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Feb 9, 2017 |
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:02 |
|
Spangly A posted:no, we have a pretty poo poo government Congratulations, this is why you look at the headline figures that make use of voter likelihood models. quote:are you defending statistical methods that arbitrarily exclude the larger parts of their sample? No, *you are*. If you are trumpeting raw values for a party as a percentage of votes with the denominator including undecideds then you are making the very strong assumption that undecided voters don't vote. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Feb 9, 2017 |
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:09 |
|
Fangz posted:For a start, what do you mean by this. Essentially that because a large number of the undecideds (of which there was a lot more than your average US election) in the states that Trump picked up the most last minute support not accounted for in the final headline results were soft R leaners that the potential variation of Trump's performance was higher and skewed towards outperforming the poll number. Fangz posted:Or actually, explain what 'margin of error' means to you. It's how close we expect the actual result to be given a certain likelihood. Fangz posted:Congratulations, this is why you look at the headline figures that make use of voter likelihood models. The headline figures exclude don't knows they don't apply any model to them. My point is that even if the likelihood weights are very accurate on average they still add variance to the model. Excluding don't knows also adds variance and afaik no pollster publishes results trying to model how those voters might break.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:12 |
|
Private Speech posted:I look forward to Labour voting with the government on every bill they can push through, then. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most government bills don't have the weight of a referendum behind them though Does anyone know how the Colombian government's decision to ignore the result of the FARC referendum and sign a peace treaty anyway went?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:12 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Essentially that because a large number of the undecideds (of which there was a lot more than your average US election) in the states that Trump picked up the most last minute support not accounted for in the final headline results were soft R leaners that the potential variation of Trump's performance was higher and skewed towards outperforming the poll number. Incorrect. The undecideds were accounted for, but they were accounted for poorly (they used past elections as precedent, but turns out the past wasn't a great guide). The undecideds introduced additional unexpected variability into the system, but the whole point of variability - especially ones without a lot of precedent - is that you can't use the undecideds to generate better predictions. quote:It's how close we expect the actual result to be given a certain likelihood. Nope. It's an estimate of the inherent variability of the results on repeated sampling subject to assumptions. Voter likelihood methods and demographic reweighting are introduced to *reduce* the contribution of sampling variation to MoE.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:17 |
|
Fangz posted:
no I'm the one saying that raw values are dumb Fangz posted:
are you trained in probability?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:17 |
|
Spangly A posted:no I'm the one saying that raw values are dumb Okay cool. The other guy is an idiot.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:19 |
|
Spangly A posted:no I'm the one saying that raw values are dumb I'm a professional statistician yeah
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:21 |
|
Most polls in the final week had Clinton winning the popular vote by 2-4%. She won the popular vote by 2.1%.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:21 |
|
Fangz posted:As a lazy hypothetical, is there actually a point at which Corbyn would be perceived to have crossed some kind of red line for people? At this point he could probably murder babies in their sleep and people would claim that these are babies being brought up under the oppressive yoke of capitalism and that killing them is a mercy.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:22 |
|
Hillary lost horrifically and is probably one of the worst to ever attempt a run at the office. Corbyn finished.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:22 |
|
TinTower posted:Most polls in the final week had Clinton winning the popular vote by 2-4%. did she win the presidency Yorkshire Tea posted:At this point he could probably murder babies in their sleep and people would claim that these are babies being brought up under the oppressive yoke of capitalism and that killing them is a mercy. I'd be ok with him going herod yes
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:23 |
|
Nonsense posted:Hillary lost horrifically and is probably one of the worst to ever attempt a run at the office. Corbyn finished. Getting more votes for president than any white man in history = losing horrifically, gotcha. Spangly A posted:did she win the presidency She won the popular vote by a margin the polls suggested she would.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:23 |
|
MikeCrotch posted:Does anyone know how the Colombian government's decision to ignore the result of the FARC referendum and sign a peace treaty anyway went? Last BBC article I read suggested that the UN were expecting the last of the FARC rebels to enter a designated zone by yesterday, I think. In the meantime, the government have started negotiations with the second-largest group of rebels. Because in some countries, the government realises that the populace are stupid, inbred ratarses and should be ignored for their own safety.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:24 |
|
Goddamn do I not want to have a Hillary debate ever again.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:25 |
|
Fangz posted:Incorrect. The undecideds were accounted for, but they were accounted for poorly (they used past elections as precedent, but turns out the past wasn't a great guide). The undecideds introduced additional unexpected variability into the system, but the whole point of variability - especially ones without a lot of precedent - is that you can't use the undecideds to generate better predictions. That's a very strong claim and strange to make. I would wager that past voting behaviour is indicative of which way an undecided might break. Also you could just ask them what way they lean. Any model that used the proportion undecideds to increase the variance of it's estimates even if it didn't move the means would be arguably more accurate than one that didn't. Otherwise you're basically claiming that a poll of 100 people with 0 undecideds has the same variance in its estimate as a poll of 1000 people with 900 undecideds. Fangz posted:Nope. It's an estimate of the inherent variability of the results on repeated sampling subject to assumptions. Voter likelihood methods and demographic reweighting are introduced to *reduce* the contribution of sampling variation to MoE. How is what you're saying any different from saying it is how far our sampled estimate is expected to be from the population parameter a given proportion of the time? It basically sounds like you know some stats and have just memorised some frequentist terminology and don't actually get what I'm saying. Of course likelihood models and weightings are designed to reduce variance - but they don't eliminate it. There's no reason why you couldn't estimate the variation of your weightings based on the statistics of the demographic weight changes when you recalibrate them. You're being overly simplistic by talking about poll results as if they're just a statistical sampling problem as opposed to being a part of a larger probabilistic model which itself has variability and also includes non-determinism in human behaviour. Edit: Maybe the easiest way to explain the general point is this: A binomial distribution does not have the same variance as a beta-binomial distribution. Headline polling figures are a result of a complex hierarchical model and therefore the nature of the variance of its estimates is also complex but not impossible to model . Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Feb 9, 2017 |
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:31 |
|
TinTower posted:Getting more votes for president than any white man in history = losing horrifically, gotcha. SHE LOST TO DONALD TRUMP kingturnip posted:Last BBC article I read suggested that the UN were expecting the last of the FARC rebels to enter a designated zone by yesterday, I think. glorious
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:32 |
|
TinTower posted:Getting more votes for president than any white man in history = losing horrifically, gotcha. it might surprise you to learn that populations increase over time and as such there are more people to vote. shocking i know. lol donald trump won
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:33 |
|
This thread is really showing the truth of that Labour polling which said position on Brexit was more important than previous party loyalty.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:35 |
|
namesake posted:This thread is really showing the truth of that Labour polling which said position on Brexit was more important than previous party loyalty. every person with a single braincell realises that this is worth way more than 5 years political capital/economic consequences if it could be stopped it would be, but it can't, because nobody in charge wants to, because they're filthy, self-serving animals so idk let's just roll with it
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:38 |
|
On the general point that polls suck especially in the UK system, I totally agree. But they are pretty much the only data we have at this point, and we need to be very careful about the temptation to throw out data because their conclusions are inconvenient. Also people who ridiculously mishandle the data suck. The general picture of Con > Lab > LD = UKIP looks pretty good, so is the story that Lab is going down and LD is going up. Is the percentage Lab is going up and LD going down 'a lot', well that's a qualitative assessment that is pretty boring. On the question of how this will change over the next election, who the gently caress knows, I don't think things look good for labour. Lord of the Llamas posted:That's a very strong claim and strange to make. I would wager that past voting behaviour is indicative of which way an undecided might break. Also you could just ask them what way they lean. Any model that used the proportion undecideds to increase the variance of it's estimates even if it didn't move the means would be arguably more accurate than one that didn't. Otherwise you're basically claiming that a poll of 100 people with 0 undecideds has the same variance in its estimate as a poll of 1000 people with 900 undecideds. This is just word garbage. Yes, you can use assumptions on how undecideds vote to estimate the final result, also using prior voting data. Each company does this their own way. 'Increase the variance of its estimates... is more accurate' is just handwavy gibberish. Of course I don't claim that a "poll of 100 people with 0 undecideds has the same variance in its estimate as a poll of 1000 people with 900 undecideds". quote:How is what you're saying any different from saying it is how far our sampled estimate is expected to be from the population parameter a given proportion of the time? It basically sounds like you know some stats and have just memorised some frequentist terminology and don't actually get what I'm saying. It basically sounds like you are an idiot. This is the fundamental difference between between frequentist and bayesian stats, kid. Also just between us, MoE estimates from polling companies are generally bullshit, but hey, whatever. None of this says talking about raw values is better than talking about the headline values. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 9, 2017 |
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:45 |
|
Fangz posted:On the general point that polls suck especially in the UK system, I totally agree. But they are pretty much the only data we have at this point, and we need to be very careful about the temptation to throw out data because their conclusions are inconvenient. Also people who ridiculously mishandle the data suck. Maybe the easiest way to explain the general point is this: A binomial distribution does not have the same variance as a beta-binomial distribution. Headline polling figures are a result of a complex hierarchical model and therefore the nature of the variance of its estimates is also complex but not impossible to model. Your position appears to be that these things cannot be understood and therefore we shouldn't bother and just ignore them. And of course a model is more accurate if it has more variance when estimating an uncertain event than a more certain one. This mistake is why so many crappy polling aggregates gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning. Also lol if you're literally one of those "bayesians are idiots" people. Fangz posted:None of this says talking about raw values is better than talking about the headline values. The 2nd page values aren't "raw" they're still demographically weighted. What I'm saying is that you can't interpret the headline results correctly without also looking at the 2nd page results because it gives you lots of information about potential variability in the estimate. Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 9, 2017 |
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:50 |
|
Fangz posted:It basically sounds like you are an idiot. This is the fundamental difference between between frequentist and bayesian stats, kid. I love calling people stupid because we're all idiots but I have weird sympathies for not understanding bayesian stats, I failed my first two assignments at uni before it clicked
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:50 |
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:You missed my edit so here it is: No, my position is that we should use the headline values which represent the polling company's attempt to correct for all sources of error using demographic data and voter intention data which they do not otherwise make generally accessible. Rather than... what, exactly?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:52 |
|
Fangz posted:No, my position is that we should use the headline values which represent the polling company's attempt to correct for all sources of error using demographic data and voter intention data which they do not otherwise make generally accessible. Rather than... what, exactly? I'm saying we should use all the information instead of making retarded conclusions from just the headline numbers like TinTower and the commentariat do.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:55 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:28 |
|
data that hides its sources and methods isnt good data and bad data is worse than no data
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:56 |