|
JBP posted:Is this why it was off on Trump? Like lack of political history, offices, own party hated him, etc? 538 said Trump would beat Clinton approximately 1 out of 3 times. I don't believe they were off last time. They gave Trump a better chance than almost anyone else. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't think very many gave Hillary a 100% chance, so it really depends on how big you think the chance of Donny's perfect storm of losing the popular vote by millions but winning the EV by thousands was. Personally I think Nate put his chances way to high, and Donny's win was a 5-10% possibility. Yeah this gets missed a lot since people think Trump winning means giving him the the best odds means Nate was the most right. I think the people giving Clinton a 99 percent chance were more right than Nate was as the margin was tiny like you said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
I dont think giving Trump a better chance is necessarily a sign of accuracy. Trump's victory was very unlikely and he won by the barest of margins, which was like 80000 votes across 3 swing states after Comey sent the letter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Julia3131/status/1223607003001638914?s=19 These people are insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
I had a WaPo reporter knock on my door yesterday (Manchester NH) to ask about the primary canvassing, candidates and impeachment. It was cool. He started asking about if canvassers were overwhelming. I don't think he expected me to say how much I love having canvassers stop by every primary season. It's seriously my favorite thing to talk to them and try and feed them. I really don't think NH should have the first primary but while we do I will enjoy it. I've been saving all my flyers that I've collected or had hung on my door. I have 14 from Bernie, 6 from Warren and 3 from Yang. Never seen a Biden or Mayo Pete canvasser.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
538 gave Trump the highest chance of winning but it didn't predict his pathway (WI, PA, MI) more accurately than any other model. For example, on election night 538 had Trump's chances of winning Michigan about equal to taking Rhode Island. If your statistical model can't make accurate predictions then it's trash, regardless of the chances you assign to one outcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:https://twitter.com/Julia3131/status/1223607003001638914?s=19 Bernie's Concubines? Not even Bernie Babes? Bernie Bro-ettes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
These people are gonna be dropping the k-word on Bernie before this is all done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIemnX4_GA
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:These people are gonna be dropping the k-word on Bernie before this is all done. Which one
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:Which one King. Killer
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:https://twitter.com/Julia3131/status/1223607003001638914?s=19 I’m so glad Woke Twitter is continuing to show us how deep their commitment to social justice is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ml_nbn_20200202 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY57Vn0qTiU
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sarahforbernie/status/1224012141776330752
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ml_nbn_20200202 There has to be a better metaphor for this. It’s liberals who ally with fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Bernie's Concubines? Not even Bernie Babes? Bernie Bro-ettes? Bernettes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I keep hearing this ridiculous Bloomberg ad on podcasts and it sounds like a loving parody. There's a line that's more or less "What's Mike about? Doing things." It's also too long and gets cut off in like half of the podcasts where I've heard it. It's hilarious. What the gently caress podcasts are you listening to that have paid political ads?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
This ad is amazing. Completely owning being their worst loving nightmare is the correct strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:538 gave Trump the highest chance of winning but it didn't predict his pathway (WI, PA, MI) more accurately than any other model. For example, on election night 538 had Trump's chances of winning Michigan about equal to taking Rhode Island. If your statistical model can't make accurate predictions then it's trash, regardless of the chances you assign to one outcome. I thought Trump was polling 5-10 points down in Michigan? Ultimately it's a model based on polling, if the polls miss then the model will miss. Silver's model gave Trump the best chance because his model trusted polling accuracy the least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
So how does the viablity stuff work? Like if a candidate isn't viable at one precinct by even one vote, they just lose all those potential votes (likely to someone else)? Even if the precinct next door has them well above the threshold?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
gandlethorpe posted:So how does the viablity stuff work? Like if a candidate isn't viable at one precinct by even one vote, they just lose all those potential votes (likely to someone else)? Even if the precinct next door has them well above the threshold? Pretty much. The statewide delegates are awarded based on overall performance and exceeding the viability threshold, while the district/precinct/whatever the delineation is in Iowa delegates are determined within that unit. So you can get delegates without hitting 15% statewide, and you can get less than 15% of the total delegates despite hitting 15% statewide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Almost flawless! (and that hair was absolutely fabulous!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jacobisanadult/status/1223864448437407746?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
I will give Warren the benefit of the doubt on the Native American thing. She very well could have been convinced of her heritage. Until the advent of DNA testing most people took what they were told by close family as the truth. Everything else, yeah she has been lying. I will likely blame her campaign staff more than anything. I am thinking that she does not have great staff especially evidenced by the pathetic stunts she has been pulling. She really should know better and should be better. It will cost her the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Which part, the one where his crowd is bigger and more enthusiastic than anyone else's, or the part where he's clearly going to win the presidency?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
gandlethorpe posted:So how does the viablity stuff work? Like if a candidate isn't viable at one precinct by even one vote, they just lose all those potential votes (likely to someone else)? Even if the precinct next door has them well above the threshold? there are two rounds of caucusing. in the first round everyone goes to their initial corners. in most place, you will need to get 15% of the caucus to be viable. if you are in a viable group - great! you are now stuck there. in fact, you can go home if you want (although you won't be able to vote on who is elected as a delegate). if your group is not viable, you move to the second round of caucusing. here are your options: 1. try to recruit other people from non-viable groups to come to you and make your group viable. 2. join a viable group 3. leave the delegates will then be awarded according to a roughly proportional (but not exactly because lol caucus math) formula. these delegates are reported by the iowa dems in a weighted formula based on the 2016 and 2018 democratic presidential candidate/governor performance in that precinct. iowa will report three results: 1. the popular vote in the first round, prior to viability re-shuffling. (i.e. if you only had 1 dude for your candidate, your precinct will report a popular vote of 1 even if the group wasn't viable) 2. the popular vote in the second round 3. the number of delegates (called SDE, statewide delegate equivalent) each candidate won. the candidate with the highest SDE is the "official" winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Which part, the one where his crowd is bigger and more enthusiastic than anyone else's, or the part where he's clearly going to win the presidency? Yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
this one's good too: https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1224119403903684620
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I will give Warren the benefit of the doubt on the Native American thing. She very well could have been convinced of her heritage. Until the advent of DNA testing most people took what they were told by close family as the truth. If she really believed it, why list herself as white on applications where there might be legal consequences but Native when there are no legal consequences? It seems much more likely she knew she wasn’t really Native, but exaggerated for personal gain. Which is her MO, she doesn’t tell straight out lies, she stretches the truth in ways she can pretend she didn’t know she was lying. Like with her kids attending private school, camp Warren claims that she didn’t lie, she did send her kids to public school for a few years before moving them to private school, so “I took my kids to public schools just like you” isn’t “a lie” it’s just intentionally misleading so the listener comes away believing a falsehood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I will give Warren the benefit of the doubt on the Native American thing. She very well could have been convinced of her heritage. Until the advent of DNA testing most people took what they were told by close family as the truth. This is nonsense. She didn't just believe that she had Native American. It's something that lasted for decades, and Native American activists have been pointing out how she was hurting them since 2012, only for her to call then republican operatives. Whatever you think she believed in 1995, she can't feign ignorance since 2012 at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:these delegates are reported by the iowa dems in a weighted formula based on the 2016 and 2018 democratic presidential candidate/governor performance in that precinct. This quoted bit here seems like good fodder if anybody feels like getting their Arzy on. Does anybody know if the distribution of voting in 2016/2018 was substantially centered around old folks homes? - and how does this work with the new satellite caucusses?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I will give Warren the benefit of the doubt on the Native American thing. She very well could have been convinced of her heritage. Until the advent of DNA testing most people took what they were told by close family as the truth. Since actual Cherokee people were telling her she was full of poo poo as early as 2012 and she responded by calling them GOP operatives, I would suggest the benefit of the doubt should not be extended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I thought Trump was polling 5-10 points down in Michigan? Ultimately it's a model based on polling, if the polls miss then the model will miss. Silver's model gave Trump the best chance because his model trusted polling accuracy the least. Exactly. It's not that the 538 model accurately predicted the state by state results, it's that Nate's model had an inherent distrust of polls and baked in a larger error margin in case they were wrong. Compare that to Sam Wang who 100% trusted the polls and gave Hillary a 99.9% chance of winning on Election night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegqTj3SHO4 "My pah-paw had high cheekbones like all of the indians do" -Elizabeth Warren, definitely not a loving racist
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
Pingui posted:This quoted bit here seems like good fodder if anybody feels like getting their Arzy on. Does anybody know if the distribution of voting in 2016/2018 was substantially centered around old folks homes? - and how does this work with the new satellite caucusses? no, it's nothing like that. there is a disadvantage for people who might have their support super-concentrated - the delegate formula doesn't care how many people show up to your caucus site, so if you get 400 people and win every delegate, it's exactly the same as if 1 person showed up as far as the sde goes. there are 99 satellite caucuses and my understanding is they are assigned for delegate counting purposes as an extra precinct in each county. but i am not sure how much they're worth, i don't think much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
If Elizabeth Warren sincerely believed she was Native American, then presumably she would have an excellent track record on Native American issues and a history of working with Native American tribes?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:538 gave ... more accurately Djarum posted:Everything else, yeah she has been lying. I will likely blame her campaign staff more than anything
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I will give Warren the benefit of the doubt on the Native American thing. She very well could have been convinced of her heritage. Until the advent of DNA testing most people took what they were told by close family as the truth. The problem is that Warren has already blown the benefit of the doubt. The test results rebuked her, real Native Americans rebuked her, and she still stuck to the claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:no, it's nothing like that. there is a disadvantage for people who might have their support super-concentrated - the delegate formula doesn't care how many people show up to your caucus site, so if you get 400 people and win every delegate, it's exactly the same as if 1 person showed up as far as the sde goes. Am I misunderstanding? - I thought you meant that say the distribution of votes in 2016/2018 was: Site 1: 20% Site 2: 25% Site 3: 25% Site 4: 30% The delegate count would be distributed by those percentages. So this year if the people that showed up was 1 person at each of the first 3 sites, and 10 showed up at site 4, those three people would decide 70% and the 10 people would decide 30%?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Doesn't he know it's bad luck to sniff a seabird? Joe, on the precipice of an uncertain fate 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 02:22
|
|
