Current Events > New report: Chance of democrat "blue wave" quickly diminishing

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
COVxy 06/18/18 3:27:45 PM #51:	Coffeebeanz posted... I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903510902] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 </quote> On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 3:29:08 PM #52:	COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. And cut the superiority BS. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903510989] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 </quote> On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics.</quote> Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. And cut the superiority BS.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Trigg3rH4ppy 06/18/18 3:30:49 PM #53:	UnfairRepresent posted... Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later. Only way conservatives would care about shutting down the factory is if it was union run and actually paid decent wages --- ~A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men ~ TWSSted since~ 3/27/12 https://imgur.com/zlaENmx <cite>Trigg3rH4ppy posted [p:903511095] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later.</quote> Only way conservatives would care about shutting down the factory is if it was union run and actually paid decent wages</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 3:32:11 PM #54:	Trigg3rH4ppy posted... UnfairRepresent posted... Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later. Only way conservatives would care about shutting down the factory is if it was union run and actually paid decent wages Self-described conservatives usually aren't even smart enough to know that. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903511187] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Trigg3rH4ppy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later.</quote> Only way conservatives would care about shutting down the factory is if it was union run and actually paid decent wages</quote> Self-described conservatives usually aren't even smart enough to know that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 3:34:27 PM #55:	COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. i almost refuse to believe it, really The best place to follow 2016 coverage for polling was 538; their chances for Trump winning was like 25-28%. That's low, but it was acknowledged polling could be wrong in certain areas and anybody familiar with statistics should understand that things that have a 1 in 4 chance of happening occur on a daily basis everywhere. If he's a physician, I would assume he understands that a survival rate of a disease at 25% does not mean it's impossible the person will live? Right? But politics enters the picture and he disregards statistics entirely. Yet, despite a wealth of text an explanation dedicated to the subject even by a somewhat partisan source, the usual suspects disregard it, tout inferior models from NYT/Huffington post, disregard decades of other polling data to indicate polling can be reliable or a useful metric, disregard its general unreliably in the 2012 election, disregard national polling data being accurate in 2016, etc It's almost as if the conservatives here are using Clinton's Midwestern collapse and the poor polling conducted there to argue that polling as a concept is worthless even though they're the first to post the rare outliers from Rasmussen showing Trump having almost even approval ratings. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903511331] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 </quote> On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics.</quote> i almost refuse to believe it, really The best place to follow 2016 coverage for polling was 538; their chances for Trump winning was like 25-28%. That's low, but it was acknowledged polling could be wrong in certain areas and anybody familiar with statistics should understand that things that have a 1 in 4 chance of happening occur on a daily basis everywhere. If he's a physician, I would assume he understands that a survival rate of a disease at 25% does not mean it's impossible the person will live? Right? But politics enters the picture and he disregards statistics entirely. Yet, despite a wealth of text an explanation dedicated to the subject even by a somewhat partisan source, the usual suspects disregard it, tout inferior models from NYT/Huffington post, disregard decades of other polling data to indicate polling can be reliable or a useful metric, disregard its general unreliably in the 2012 election, disregard national polling data being accurate in 2016, etc It's almost as if the conservatives here are using Clinton's Midwestern collapse and the poor polling conducted there to argue that polling as a concept is worthless even though they're the first to post the rare outliers from Rasmussen showing Trump having almost even approval ratings. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Shut_TheF---_Up 06/18/18 3:34:37 PM #56:	Out goes CEdrama and in goes conservatives having their usual meltdowns <cite>Shut_TheF---_Up posted [p:903511346] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>Out goes CEdrama and in goes conservatives having their usual meltdowns</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 3:37:17 PM #57:	Zero_Destroyer posted... COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. i almost refuse to believe it, really The best place to follow 2016 coverage for polling was 538; their chances for Trump winning was like 25-28%. That's low, but it was acknowledged polling could be wrong in certain areas and anybody familiar with statistics should understand that things that have a 1 in 4 chance of happening occur on a daily basis everywhere. If he's a physician, I would assume he understands that a survival rate of a disease at 25% does not mean it's impossible the person will live? Right? But politics enters the picture and he disregards statistics entirely. Yet, despite a wealth of text an explanation dedicated to the subject even by a somewhat partisan source, the usual suspects disregard it, tout inferior models from NYT/Huffington post, disregard decades of other polling data to indicate polling can be reliable or a useful metric, disregard its general unreliably in the 2012 election, disregard national polling data being accurate in 2016, etc It's almost as if the conservatives here are using Clinton's Midwestern collapse and the poor polling conducted there to argue that polling as a concept is worthless even though they're the first to post the rare outliers from Rasmussen showing Trump having almost even approval ratings. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Ironically, for all the shit Nate Silver got in 2016, he was actually the most accurate of the major poll aggregate analysts. Everyone was all on Sam Wong's D, but he was way off the mark. Also, Rasmussen is absolute shit-tier and I cannot believe that they're still used. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903511512] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>I'm legit amazed you can still find comfort in polls after 2016 </quote> On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics.</quote> i almost refuse to believe it, really The best place to follow 2016 coverage for polling was 538; their chances for Trump winning was like 25-28%. That's low, but it was acknowledged polling could be wrong in certain areas and anybody familiar with statistics should understand that things that have a 1 in 4 chance of happening occur on a daily basis everywhere. If he's a physician, I would assume he understands that a survival rate of a disease at 25% does not mean it's impossible the person will live? Right? But politics enters the picture and he disregards statistics entirely. Yet, despite a wealth of text an explanation dedicated to the subject even by a somewhat partisan source, the usual suspects disregard it, tout inferior models from NYT/Huffington post, disregard decades of other polling data to indicate polling can be reliable or a useful metric, disregard its general unreliably in the 2012 election, disregard national polling data being accurate in 2016, etc It's almost as if the conservatives here are using Clinton's Midwestern collapse and the poor polling conducted there to argue that polling as a concept is worthless even though they're the first to post the rare outliers from Rasmussen showing Trump having almost even approval ratings. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM</quote> Ironically, for all the shit Nate Silver got in 2016, he was actually the most accurate of the major poll aggregate analysts. Everyone was all on Sam Wong's D, but he was way off the mark. Also, Rasmussen is absolute shit-tier and I cannot believe that they're still used.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 3:39:09 PM #58:	In fairness to Rasmussen I remember them being accurate on the national polling front in 2016 (not 2012): I may be wrong. I know IBD/TIPP was on the mark. --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903511637] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>In fairness to Rasmussen I remember them being accurate on the national polling front in 2016 (not 2012): I may be wrong. I know IBD/TIPP was on the mark.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 3:41:05 PM #59:	Zero_Destroyer posted... In fairness to Rasmussen I remember them being accurate on the national polling front in 2016 (not 2012): I may be wrong. I know IBD/TIPP was on the mark. They were accurate in 2004 IIRC. Mostly because other pollsters had ridiculously weighted models that grossly overestimated Democrat turnout for Kerry. Anyone who actually saw Kerry would've questioned his turnout. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903511777] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote>In fairness to Rasmussen I remember them being accurate on the national polling front in 2016 (not 2012): I may be wrong. I know IBD/TIPP was on the mark.</quote> They were accurate in 2004 IIRC. Mostly because other pollsters had ridiculously weighted models that grossly overestimated Democrat turnout for Kerry. Anyone who actually saw Kerry would've questioned his turnout.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/18/18 3:43:59 PM #60:	Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903511971] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 06/18/18 3:47:10 PM #61:	Shut_TheF---_Up posted... Out goes CEdrama and in goes conservatives having their usual meltdowns Does HypnoCoosh ever end his meltdown? It seems to be a constant. Well, aside from his warns/purgs <cite>BWLurker posted [p:903512231] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Shut_TheF---_Up posted...</cite> <quote>Out goes CEdrama and in goes conservatives having their usual meltdowns</quote> Does HypnoCoosh ever end his meltdown? It seems to be a constant. Well, aside from his warns/purgs</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 06/18/18 3:47:48 PM #62:	COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:903512285] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/18/18 3:48:31 PM #63:	Kazi1212 posted... COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint The polling numbers were not wrong. So, yes, it is unreasonable. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903512331] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint</quote> The polling numbers were not wrong. So, yes, it is unreasonable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 06/18/18 3:48:44 PM #64:	Kazi1212 posted... COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint It is a wholly unreasonable viewpoint. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:903512343] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint</quote> It is a wholly unreasonable viewpoint.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 3:50:06 PM #65:	oh, and my perspective on the middterms is - -Dems handily take House -Dems handily lose Senate they have overperformed in most (all?) of the SEs since 2016 and will probably be able to defend a ton of seats but likely take none except maybe TN. I've posted about this on 261 but it would take a real, concentrated backlash to actually give them the Senate because they have to defend so many red state seats. Ones like Manchin are free but FL, IN, ND, MT are all going to be drawn out and hard and dems are better off shooting for a TN flip as insurance in case IN/ND go wrong. A stronger Dem party might be able to shoot for TX/MS but they'd be unwise to put money/effort there when they can feasibly defend and worry about taking it back in 2020 when they might have seeded even more dislike against the Republican party part of this depends on what you even consider to be a "blue wave". Investors have the same perspective as I do, going to places like PI, where Dems winning the house seems likely but taking the Senate is about as much of a longshot as Trump's victory was in 2016. It can happen, but I wouldn't bet on the unlikely all the time, unless something serious happens to the Trump admin like charges against Jr./Kushner, economic problems caused by premiums rising, or something drastic happening out of the current immigration issue that causes a lot of independents to get angry Or War with Iran but I doubt that's happening --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903512427] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>oh, and my perspective on the middterms is - -Dems handily take House -Dems handily lose Senate they have overperformed in most (all?) of the SEs since 2016 and will probably be able to defend a ton of seats but likely take none except maybe TN. I've posted about this on 261 but it would take a real, concentrated backlash to actually give them the Senate because they have to defend so many red state seats. Ones like Manchin are free but FL, IN, ND, MT are all going to be drawn out and hard and dems are better off shooting for a TN flip as insurance in case IN/ND go wrong. A stronger Dem party might be able to shoot for TX/MS but they'd be unwise to put money/effort there when they can feasibly defend and worry about taking it back in 2020 when they might have seeded even more dislike against the Republican party part of this depends on what you even consider to be a "blue wave". Investors have the same perspective as I do, going to places like PI, where Dems winning the house seems likely but taking the Senate is about as much of a longshot as Trump's victory was in 2016. It can happen, but I wouldn't bet on the unlikely all the time, unless something serious happens to the Trump admin like charges against Jr./Kushner, economic problems caused by premiums rising, or something drastic happening out of the current immigration issue that causes a lot of independents to get angry Or War with Iran but I doubt that's happening</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 06/18/18 3:53:08 PM #66:	A_Good_Boy posted... voldothegr8 posted... Peter_Giffyndor posted... Doom_Art posted... And yet Dems keep winning elections Wassat all about And yet Trump is your president XFD Ignore him, he's a Canadian weirdly obsessed with American politics. It's weird how the criticism is rarely that he's wrong, it's that he's Canadian. Yet him and Trump can have views on Canadian politics. But Canadians cant have views on our politics. --- https://imgur.com/jWVrg9U https://imgur.com/g2efUtT https://imgur.com/5dOwhaP https://imgur.com/LVdqu8J Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:903512632] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peter_Giffyndor posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote> And yet Dems keep winning elections Wassat all about </quote> And yet Trump is your president XFD</quote> Ignore him, he's a Canadian weirdly obsessed with American politics.</quote> It's weird how the criticism is rarely that he's wrong, it's that he's Canadian.</quote> Yet him and Trump can have views on Canadian politics. But Canadians cant have views on our politics. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 06/18/18 3:53:36 PM #67:	did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:903512659] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 3:54:28 PM #68:	Balrog0 posted... did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do i've seen plenty of people act like the Senate is in play that's part of that Blue Wave narrative, really. If I made account bets I'd bet O'Rourke loses Texas hard but some people are genuinely confident he'll take it --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903512720] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do</quote> i've seen plenty of people act like the Senate is in play that's part of that Blue Wave narrative, really. If I made account bets I'd bet O'Rourke loses Texas hard but some people are genuinely confident he'll take it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 06/18/18 3:54:45 PM #69:	Balrog0 posted... did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do When Alabama went blue it started people thinking it was a possibility. <cite>BWLurker posted [p:903512738] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>did anyone ever consider the senate to be in play? I've seen much more talk about the house and then about state legislative races after that the DLCC has been putting in much more work this cycle than they usually do</quote> When Alabama went blue it started people thinking it was a possibility.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 3:55:30 PM #70:	Kazi1212 posted... COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint The numbers were wrong but not that wrong. The people interpreting the polls were the ones grossly off the mark. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903512782] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint</quote> The numbers were wrong but not that wrong. The people interpreting the polls were the ones grossly off the mark.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 06/18/18 3:55:58 PM #71:	COVxy posted... Kazi1212 posted... COVxy posted... Coffeebeanz posted... Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be. Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol. You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint The polling numbers were not wrong. So, yes, it is unreasonable. Not wrong in what sense? Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? Or are you saying not wrong from the data they collected to make that prediction? --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:903512811] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because my former job was an epidemiologist for a health department and I know just how wrong stats can be.</quote> Can be, not are. Are would require and argument lol.</quote> You would think the fact that the election polls were so disastrously wrong would serve as a reasonable argument against it in and of itself. But hey, maybe thats a wholly unreasonable viewpoint</quote> The polling numbers were not wrong. So, yes, it is unreasonable.</quote> Not wrong in what sense? Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? Or are you saying not wrong from the data they collected to make that prediction?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KarmaMuffin 06/18/18 3:56:42 PM #72:	COVxy posted... On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. It seems fair to say that she has enough experience to think she knows enough, but not enough to realize she doesn't. Y'know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and all that jazz. <cite>KarmaMuffin posted [p:903512855] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>On the off chance that you aren't always playing up a gimmick, it's terrifying that a physician can have such a low understanding of statistics. </quote> It seems fair to say that she has enough experience to think she knows enough, but not enough to realize she doesn't. Y'know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and all that jazz.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/18/18 3:57:07 PM #73:	Zero_Destroyer posted... -Dems handily lose Senate When you say handily lose, are you projecting they lose seats? --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903512878] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote>-Dems handily lose Senate </quote> When you say handily lose, are you projecting they lose seats?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 3:59:04 PM #74:	alabama was a weird case where Moore was a bad candidate on the outset. That seat was +30 Rep. The general, simplified consensus I've seen is -Moore cut 10% by being terrible pre-scandal -Anti-trump atmosphere weakened Reps 10% -Scandal cut that last 10% off and let Jones narrowly win Anti-Trump atmosphere present in these elections are a common element that have Dems winning or at least strongly contesting unlikely races. Polling in AL had Moore doing terribly by the seat's standards pre-scandal, for example, but by that definition, you'd need every seat to -Have a bad candidate -Have a scandal hit them ...If we're treating anti-Trump atmosphere as a default, which is kind of is judging by his poor approval numbers. This will probably make TN competitive by having a popular Dem candidate, but it's not going to help a newbie beat an incumbent like Satan AKA Ted Cruz unless Ted Cruz is caught murdering people --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903513000] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>alabama was a weird case where Moore was a bad candidate on the outset. That seat was +30 Rep. The general, simplified consensus I've seen is -Moore cut 10% by being terrible pre-scandal -Anti-trump atmosphere weakened Reps 10% -Scandal cut that last 10% off and let Jones narrowly win Anti-Trump atmosphere present in these elections are a common element that have Dems winning or at least strongly contesting unlikely races. Polling in AL had Moore doing terribly by the seat's standards pre-scandal, for example, but by that definition, you'd need every seat to -Have a bad candidate -Have a scandal hit them ...If we're treating anti-Trump atmosphere as a default, which is kind of is judging by his poor approval numbers. This will probably make TN competitive by having a popular Dem candidate, but it's not going to help a newbie beat an incumbent like Satan AKA Ted Cruz unless Ted Cruz is caught murdering people</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 4:00:04 PM #75:	Ted Cruz beat Jimmy Kimmel in 1 v 1 basketball. Ted Cruz used SCARY FACE. Jimmy Kimmel is now confused! --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903513053] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>Ted Cruz beat Jimmy Kimmel in 1 v 1 basketball. Ted Cruz used SCARY FACE. Jimmy Kimmel is now confused!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 4:02:03 PM #76:	Anteaterking posted... Zero_Destroyer posted... -Dems handily lose Senate When you say handily lose, are you projecting they lose seats? Better wording would be "They handily don't take the senate". I think whether they actually lose seats is unpredictable because there are a lot of 50/50 races. FL is a tossup, ND is a tossup, MO is a tossup, IN is borderline leaning red, MT i'm not very confident in but it's technically lean blue (probably should be tossup) I think Manchin will cruise by and certain races like OH look unexpectedly free for Dem candidates so a lot of that seat defending is defending easy territory but I'd want to wait 2-3 more months after more polling happens before I say whether or not they actually lose seats. This is afaik the worst Senate map the Dems have ever had to contend with. --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903513178] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Destroyer posted...</cite> <quote>-Dems handily lose Senate </quote> When you say handily lose, are you projecting they lose seats?</quote> Better wording would be "They handily don't take the senate". I think whether they actually lose seats is unpredictable because there are a lot of 50/50 races. FL is a tossup, ND is a tossup, MO is a tossup, IN is borderline leaning red, MT i'm not very confident in but it's technically lean blue (probably should be tossup) I think Manchin will cruise by and certain races like OH look unexpectedly free for Dem candidates so a lot of that seat defending is defending easy territory but I'd want to wait 2-3 more months after more polling happens before I say whether or not they actually lose seats. This is afaik the worst Senate map the Dems have ever had to contend with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/18/18 4:02:40 PM #77:	Kazi1212 posted... Not wrong in what sense? Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? Or are you saying not wrong from the data they collected to make that prediction? The results of the election were within the margins of error of the polling results. Meaning they well predicted the results of the election. The "percent chance to win" models you are referring to essentially take random walks through those margins of error and after some number of simulations report the percent chance of one candidate winning or the other. You can tell the difference, no? The big issue was the lack of upfront explanation that these websites gave for their probabilistic modeling. If 538 made an error, it was defaulting the screen to these probabilistic models rather than the estimated polling numbers. And on top of that requiring users to dig to get an explanation of their model. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903513210] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote>Not wrong in what sense? Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? Or are you saying not wrong from the data they collected to make that prediction?</quote> The results of the election were within the margins of error of the polling results. Meaning they well predicted the results of the election. The "percent chance to win" models you are referring to essentially take random walks through those margins of error and after some number of simulations report the percent chance of one candidate winning or the other. You can tell the difference, no? The big issue was the lack of upfront explanation that these websites gave for their probabilistic modeling. If 538 made an error, it was defaulting the screen to these probabilistic models rather than the estimated polling numbers. And on top of that requiring users to dig to get an explanation of their model.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 06/18/18 4:04:14 PM #78:	I think it would be best if Dems win house but lose Senate by another narrow margin. Bring Trump's shit agenda to a halt, but prevent Pelosi from fucking things up too bad. <cite>BWLurker posted [p:903513293] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>I think it would be best if Dems win house but lose Senate by another narrow margin. Bring Trump's shit agenda to a halt, but prevent Pelosi from fucking things up too bad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jborgan 06/18/18 4:05:27 PM #79:	voldothegr8 posted... Peter_Giffyndor posted... Doom_Art posted... And yet Dems keep winning elections Wassat all about And yet Trump is your president XFD Ignore him, he's a Canadian weirdly obsessed with American politics. The only person that can be ignored is you, because your opinion means jack shit. --- http://www.last.fm/user/jborgan <cite>jborgan posted [p:903513353] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Peter_Giffyndor posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>And yet Dems keep winning elections Wassat all about</quote> And yet Trump is your president XFD</quote> Ignore him, he's a Canadian weirdly obsessed with American politics.</quote> The only person that can be ignored is you, because your opinion means jack shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/18/18 4:07:00 PM #80:	You know what's delicious Bacon + vanilla ice cream You think I'm joking but I'm not --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903513445] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>You know what's delicious Bacon + vanilla ice cream You think I'm joking but I'm not</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Destroyer 06/18/18 4:07:15 PM #81:	oh, and 2020 will be interesting. I wonder if Jones' incumbency can save him --- Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses. http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!) <cite>Zero_Destroyer posted [p:903513461] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>oh, and 2020 will be interesting. I wonder if Jones' incumbency can save him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Broseph_Stalin 06/18/18 4:07:16 PM #82:	Imagine looking at recent election results and thinking the Democrats are in big trouble. The average North Korean has a better grasp on reality than the American conservative. Kazi1212 posted... Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? Hillary had a good lead in national polling and won the national vote by a good margin. Learn how polling works before criticizing it. <cite>Broseph_Stalin posted [p:903513462] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote>Imagine looking at recent election results and thinking the Democrats are in big trouble. The average North Korean has a better grasp on reality than the American conservative. <cite>Kazi1212 posted...</cite> <quote>Was Hillary not expected to be the overwhelming favorite to win according to the polls? </quote> Hillary had a good lead in national polling and won the national vote by a good margin. Learn how polling works before criticizing it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 06/18/18 4:09:31 PM #83:	DifferentialEquation posted... Darkman124 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny. how'd your job interview go Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate. The joke account is confused eh --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:903513587] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny.</quote> how'd your job interview go</quote> Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate.</quote> The joke account is confused eh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kazi1212 06/18/18 4:09:51 PM #84:	The results of the election were within the margins of error of the polling results. Meaning they well predicted the results of the election. Source? My understanding was that it wasnt within the margin of error. The big issue was the lack of upfront explanation that these websites gave for their probabilistic modeling. If 538 made an error, it was defaulting the screen to these probabilistic models rather than the estimated polling numbers. And on top of that requiring users to dig to get an explanation of their model. If thats the case, how do you know whether their probabilistic models are good or bad? --- I don't know my gimmick "Does that sound reasonable to you?" <cite>Kazi1212 posted [p:903513614] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><quote>The results of the election were within the margins of error of the polling results. Meaning they well predicted the results of the election.</quote> Source? My understanding was that it wasnt within the margin of error. <quote>The big issue was the lack of upfront explanation that these websites gave for their probabilistic modeling. If 538 made an error, it was defaulting the screen to these probabilistic models rather than the estimated polling numbers. And on top of that requiring users to dig to get an explanation of their model.</quote> If thats the case, how do you know whether their probabilistic models are good or bad?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BWLurker 06/18/18 4:14:19 PM #85:	ChainedRedone posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Darkman124 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny. how'd your job interview go Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate. The joke account is confused eh Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it. <cite>BWLurker posted [p:903513880] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny.</quote> how'd your job interview go</quote> Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate.</quote> The joke account is confused eh</quote> Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 06/18/18 4:17:21 PM #86:	Coffeebeanz posted... And cut the superiority BS. Unhealthy levels of irony detected in your vicinity. --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:903514066] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>And cut the superiority BS.</quote> Unhealthy levels of irony detected in your vicinity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EnragedSlith 06/18/18 4:29:19 PM #87:	Coffeebeanz posted... You know what's delicious Bacon + vanilla ice cream You think I'm joking but I'm not You act like this is a secret. Bacon is basically concentrated salt and fat, so it can go with pretty much anything --- ultimate milf hunter https://imgur.com/lCEdce6 https://imgur.com/2N1Ezia https://imgur.com/ukJ6sPJ https://youtu.be/IDYaHvDiTr4 <cite>EnragedSlith posted [p:903514815] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>You know what's delicious Bacon + vanilla ice cream You think I'm joking but I'm not</quote> You act like this is a secret. Bacon is basically concentrated salt and fat, so it can go with pretty much anything</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LethalAffinity 06/18/18 4:30:06 PM #88:	UnfairRepresent posted... Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later. This is accurate af --- https://imgur.com/Sv19SP4 https://imgur.com/esZpDkI https://imgur.com/tdtzIvW https://imgur.com/E0O1koZ <cite>LethalAffinity posted [p:903514860] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Liberals are great at passionate outbursts but bad at patience and consistency Conservatives are bad at expressing human emotion and compassion but are good at patience and reliability A liberal will walk past a dog being kicked, drop to their knees and cry, then shout and berate the kicker, but will then ignore the dog meat factory he was walking past operating at peak capcity for years on end. A conservative will walk past a dog being kicked, not care, then vote to shut the factory down a year later.</quote> This is accurate af</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 06/18/18 4:56:28 PM #89:	BWLurker posted... ChainedRedone posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Darkman124 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny. how'd your job interview go Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate. The joke account is confused eh Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it. Oh yeah. I never actually went to that job fair. But I did say if Trump was hiring a fluffer that I would apply for the job. That's probably what he's referring to. --- There's no business to be taxed. <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:903516451] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>BWLurker posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny.</quote> how'd your job interview go</quote> Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate.</quote> The joke account is confused eh</quote> Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it.</quote> Oh yeah. I never actually went to that job fair. But I did say if Trump was hiring a fluffer that I would apply for the job. That's probably what he's referring to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 06/18/18 10:36:45 PM #90:	DifferentialEquation posted... BWLurker posted... ChainedRedone posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Darkman124 posted... DifferentialEquation posted... Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny. how'd your job interview go Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate. The joke account is confused eh Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it. Oh yeah. I never actually went to that job fair. But I did say if Trump was hiring a fluffer that I would apply for the job. That's probably what he's referring to. i thought your comment was funny as hell --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:903536253] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BWLurker posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>Don't relax. This is what they want us to believe. They want us to be complacent and to think that a blue wave is unlikely so we'll stay home. We are not yet safe from the threat of liberal tyranny.</quote> how'd your job interview go</quote> Whatever joke or insult this is, I don't get it. You'll have to elaborate.</quote> The joke account is confused eh</quote> Probably referring to the Trump administration being so incompetent that they had an actual job fair to fill positions. He's implying DE went for it.</quote> Oh yeah. I never actually went to that job fair. But I did say if Trump was hiring a fluffer that I would apply for the job. That's probably what he's referring to.</quote> i thought your comment was funny as hell</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0_sHBK_Blue 06/18/18 11:13:48 PM #91:	hockeybub89 posted... voldothegr8 posted... yusiko posted... Coffeebeanz posted... You'd think that Democrats would be less likely to be overconfident after losing an impossible to lose election to Donald Trump. yes thanks to an outdated electoral college that makes it possible for a republican to win with 3 million less votes California voted for hillary clinton as their president Small states get equal representation, electoral college working as intended. No, we're just giving certain pieces of land too much representation, as opposed to just giving every citizen one vote and electing whoever gets the most of them. There was no winning this election, but we should still go to a popular vote. No, it works exactly as intended. Trump actually went to these states that people like Hillary ignored because they are too small for her and he rightfully won. Now the entire country has proper representation <cite>Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted [p:903538429] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>yusiko posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Coffeebeanz posted...</cite> <quote>You'd think that Democrats would be less likely to be overconfident after losing an impossible to lose election to Donald Trump.</quote> yes thanks to an outdated electoral college that makes it possible for a republican to win with 3 million less votes California voted for hillary clinton as their president</quote> Small states get equal representation, electoral college working as intended.</quote> No, we're just giving certain pieces of land too much representation, as opposed to just giving every citizen one vote and electing whoever gets the most of them. There was no winning this election, but we should still go to a popular vote.</quote> No, it works exactly as intended. Trump actually went to these states that people like Hillary ignored because they are too small for her and he rightfully won. Now the entire country has proper representation</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSextMachine 06/19/18 12:42:23 AM #92:	yusiko posted... the country voted for hillary clinton as their president If only they had voted for her as their nominee. --- If you are reading this chances are I am pooping. <cite>TheSextMachine posted [p:903542549] in New report... [t:76726856]...</cite> <quote><cite>yusiko posted...</cite> <quote>the country voted for hillary clinton as their president</quote> If only they had voted for her as their nominee.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > New report: Chance of democrat "blue wave" quickly diminishing (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > New report: Chance of democrat "blue wave" quickly diminishing