Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 329: There's No Debate

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10
JonThePenguin
10/16/20 6:18:22 AM
#52:


... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 6:25:15 AM
#53:


God, the article is painfully unfunny too. "Lol they're all weak armed girly men who can't lift a hammer, so they programmed a robot to do it but they made it woke so it killed all cisgender men."

It should probably leave satire to the pros at The Onion.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 6:36:44 AM
#54:


TheRock1525 posted...


Nobody cares what his analysis is and nobody said they are coin flips either. Toss ups are races within the margin of error. Not sure if you are serious.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 6:53:52 AM
#55:


Corrik7 posted...
Nobody cares what his analysis is and nobody said they are coin flips either. Toss ups are races within the margin of error. Not sure if you are serious.

This isn't "analysis." It's modeling. Because just outright taking polling and ignoring other info like demographics and undecided voters is really dumb for projecting races. Especially 4 years removed from us ignoring the significant number of undecided voters heading into the election that broke heavily for Trump despite Clinton leading in the polls.

Secondly, if it's a toss-up race, it will literally say "it's a toss up race."



Even 538 did an article explaining how inelastic South Carolina was, and explained how even when Harrison was polling ahead of Graham, it was in polls where Harrison was only averaging 45-47 points and leaving a significant amount of undecided voters on the table. Which, with analysis of the demographics, show that SC Democrats struggle to go beyond 47% of the vote and leaves Harrison unlikely to win. Hence the reason that while the race tightened when polling came up good for Harrison, it never got closer than a 1/4 shot (which was much improved from the 1/10 shot he was looking at earlier this year).

So yeah, there's only one real toss-up: Ernst and Greenfield. The rest have favorites, either slightly or clearcut.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 7:05:58 AM
#56:


North Carolina is 66 to 34 and considered a toss up everywhere.

Toss ups are polls within the margin of error.

If you read my own post, I stated who is favored to win them a lot of them because it is going to be a lot of down balloting from the election.

This is why you guys thought Tim Murphy would lose in 2016 in PA when I said he was a lock and acted just as superior as you are now. Election years = down ballot voting. A few not favored to win in 2016 by Nate Silver because he failed to realize this went on to win that year. Silver has changed his modeling some based on 2016. Notice how people who say Clinton had the same polling as Biden are right but wrong? Silver used to skew his polls all the time, and his Clinton skews made her lead look bigger than it really was last time.

A toss up is an election within the margin of error however. You can have favored toss ups. When you start to move outside the margins of error is when you get to the safe areas on predictions.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 7:29:43 AM
#57:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/ben-sasse-trump.html

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337
10/16/20 7:43:24 AM
#58:


LordoftheMorons posted...
Absolutely fucking disgusting

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1316937543049502720?s=21
Trump, earlier in the day: "California, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?"

Well, apparently any help from the federal government in dealing with a disaster.

---
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 7:49:19 AM
#59:


Corrik7 posted...
North Carolina is 66 to 34 and considered a toss up everywhere.

And everywhere else is wrong. Do we need to revisit how places like the NYT gave Trump a 1% chance of winning? While Silver's model gave him a nearly 30% chance? Or how their 2018 model was almost dead on?

Biden is favored to win NC. The term toss-up implies it's literally a coinflip, which is universally not true here. Biden has polled consistently ahead Trump in NC, sometimes within the margin of error in the poll but also sometimes above the margin of error in a poll. So in order for Trump to win the state, there currently has to be a polling error of above 3.1 points. Which is possible, but the less likely of the scenarios. Hence why Biden can and should be considered the favorite in NC, even if ever so slightly.

Corrik7 posted...
Notice how people who say Clinton had the same polling as Biden are right but wrong?

Actually, they're both wrong and wrong. Clinton has never polled as well as Biden. She had far more undecided voters, rarely polled over 50%, and never had leads as big as Biden's.

Corrik7 posted...
Silver used to skew his polls all the time, and his Clinton skews made her lead look bigger than it really was last time.

No he didn't. The final projected polls had Clinton at 48.5% and she finished with 48.2% of the vote. What happened was a late break of undecided voters for Trump and an underperformance by third party candidates in the final ballot (the projection had Johnson taking 5% of the votes and he ultimately ended up 3.3%).

A toss-up is only a toss-up if there is a nearly equal chance of either election result. That's not how this works at all. Even if the polling is within the MOE, if poll after poll after poll shows you down then you are not in a coinflip race. Which is literally want toss-up means. You may win because underdogs win all the time in all sorts of things because ultimately we still have to get down to the actual performance.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4
10/16/20 7:52:41 AM
#60:


Corrik7 posted...
Notice how people who say Clinton had the same polling as Biden are right but wrong? Silver used to skew his polls all the time, and his Clinton skews made her lead look bigger than it really was last time.

Theres a whole lot wrong with the entire post, but this part is the easiest to rebut. Corrik, people wrote entire articles in 2016 saying Nate Silver was being irresponsible in giving Trump the odds he was.

Literally what are you talking about

---
Phantom Dust.
"I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 7:52:52 AM
#61:


toss-up
/ts p/
noun INFORMAL

  1. the tossing of a coin to make a decision between two alternatives.
  • a situation in which all outcomes or options are equally possible or equally attractive.


So yes, if you are gonna argue toss-up and coin-flip are two different things then I'm gonna argue you are a moron.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:07:00 AM
#62:


Also, I did not realize that Doug Jones would be considered as Attorney General if Biden's elected. Which honestly would be a good choice to reward a guy who won in ruby-red Alabama against all odds and is gonna lose his seat to a moron former head coach.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337
10/16/20 8:13:34 AM
#63:


Doug Jones would be a good AG pick IMO. He'd be in my top-tier for the spot without putting too much thought into working out the power rankings.

---
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4
10/16/20 8:20:59 AM
#64:


https://twitter.com/grylxndr/status/1316838896479674370?s=21

---
Phantom Dust.
"I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado
... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons
10/16/20 8:21:45 AM
#65:


Yeah I definitely would like to see Doug in the administration in the likely event that he loses.

---
Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:22:31 AM
#66:


It'd be certainly nice to have an AG who prosecutes the Klan instead of taking them off the terrorist list.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:28:19 AM
#67:


Also, I did not realize that Tommy Tuberville's campaign after winning the primary was literally to refuse to do anything.

No debates.
No interviews.
No responses to any questions whatsoever.

They are literally, pardon the obvious sports pun, running out the clock on that election. Which on one hand I can understand given his lead in the scant polling we have but on the other hand God it makes Alabama look so fucking pathetic when they elect an idiot football coach for no reason. It's step up from child molester, I guess.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons
10/16/20 8:34:53 AM
#68:


Yeah the bar you have to pass to be elected to the Senate as a Republican in Alabama is just "don't literally be a child molester"

Even though Moore lost, it was only by a point or so.

---
Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:36:11 AM
#69:


I believe it was the equivalent of the number of write-in votes.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 8:42:46 AM
#70:


ChaosTonyV4 posted...
Theres a whole lot wrong with the entire post, but this part is the easiest to rebut. Corrik, people wrote entire articles in 2016 saying Nate Silver was being irresponsible in giving Trump the odds he was.

Literally what are you talking about
You guys love to argue nonsense always.

Here we go yet again.

Silver's odds weren't as dismal as everyone's because he accounted for a PV/EV split which others did not and polling errors. His polling numbers were higher for Hillary due to his skews. If you remember, we very many times had a discussion about his skews and how I said his skews did not make sense a lot of the time. His skews are gone and Biden's lead is greater than Hillary's. However, the polls were deceivingly higher than for Hillary because of his skews. It is why we have articles left and right saying "no, Hillary isn't polling the same as Biden". Silver has unskewed his polls to show that difference.

You act like Silver is a God, and he is the only person that exists. If his terminology and findings aren't agreed upon that you are right. Wrong.









Like, you aren't superior to anyone just because you have your nose up Nate Silver's ass.

The reason Iowa is more 50/50 to Silver is because he learned from 2016 it is a presidential year and down balloting will happen. That's why despite the larger spread in polling iowa he sees it as close. However, the latest presidential polling in georgia has a very slight democrat favored coin flip as well. Hence why the georgia Senate race could follow georgia on its possible flip. If georgia goes blue, so will the Senate race. That's common sense.

And in the georgia Special, the democrat is out polling every single republican challenger 1 to 1, which will tighten when 1 republican exists but is a good sign for the democrat there.

Like it is kind of ridiculous that you guys argue everything that you are literally arguing against yourselves here.

You said har har we might get 52-53 seats. I analyzed how that is probabkt going to happen and how the Democratic Senate is basically a guarantee. And you are arguing against your own position now.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
10/16/20 8:43:33 AM
#71:


LordoftheMorons posted...
Trump once again refuses to condemn QAnon, claiming he both doesnt know what it is but that its great that theyre very opposed to pedophilia

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316898607157706752?s=21

lol @ "just because you say it doesn't mean it's fact." in other words, "i'm going to let you interview me but i'm also going to insinuate that you're a liar."

also love this bit:

trump: why don't you ask joe biden about antifa?
interviewer: because you're here.
trump: haha! so cute.

---
Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
10/16/20 8:46:24 AM
#72:


TheRock1525 posted...
God, the article is painfully unfunny too. "Lol they're all weak armed girly men who can't lift a hammer, so they programmed a robot to do it but they made it woke so it killed all cisgender men."

It should probably leave satire to the pros at The Onion.

i've never read one funny babylon bee article. and i've read a lot of them, because muffin used to constantly link to them.

---
Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
10/16/20 8:47:20 AM
#73:


Corrik7 posted...
You guys love to argue nonsense always.

why are you still posting here then

---
Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta
... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337
10/16/20 8:47:49 AM
#74:


Mr Lasastryke posted...
i've never read one funny babylon bee article. and i've read a lot of them, because muffin used to constantly link to them.
i feel like at some point that's on you for continuing to follow those links >_>

---
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:48:32 AM
#75:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-town-hall-savannah-guthrie/

"I don't get that," Guthrie countered. "You're the president you're not like someone's crazy uncle who can just retweet whatever!"

This pretty much sums up the Trump presidency: someone's crazy uncle got elected President and now we have to deal with this nonsense.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 8:48:33 AM
#76:


Mr Lasastryke posted...
why are you still posting here then
Easy way to pass some free time. Why not

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 8:55:40 AM
#77:


Also, is the Republicans new attack point to make fun of Hunter Biden's drug addiction? I thought it was just a one-off thing from the debate but apparently not.

They really want to run against Hunter Biden or Bernie Sanders by the attack angles they're taking.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Strikes
10/16/20 8:57:21 AM
#78:


Hey Rock, the modelling that fivethirtyeight uses incorporates historical data, which means that it will mute the effects of novel shifts in polling. This is why Maine is still close despite the fact that Collins hasnt led a poll there in over three months. Its also why Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were overcalled for Hillary despite decent evidence that they were close. Basically the model is at risk of overfitting to old results. You can see this when comparing to their skinny model which has these seats much more in line with the polls, as they deemphasise the historical data and increase the relevance if polling.

Source: I do this for a living.

Also just to be clear, Trump didnt refuse to condemn QAnon he endorsed. Dangerous and terrifying.

---
I just decided to change this sig.
Blaaaaaaargh azuarc
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:06:02 AM
#80:


Right, but historical data should absolutely be taken in account when trying to account for undecided voters or limited polling. And Maine has jumped to solidly blue the past month. I mean, Maine only added a handful of polls since that time and Quinnipac was the only one that feature a double digit lead (several were only +1). And Maine hasn't had an A rated poll since September 21st, which still featured a decent amount of undecided voters.

Like a 64% chance is a pretty good chance.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons
10/16/20 9:06:59 AM
#81:


https://twitter.com/rorycooper/status/1317087518488207363

Very mean to Your Favorite President!

---
Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:10:59 AM
#82:


Like earlier they posted an article about historical data should have shown that Wisconsin was a swing state and not part of the fabled blue wall in the midwest, as shown by the incredibly tight victories for Gore, Kerry, and Trump.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:12:59 AM
#83:


TheRock1525 posted...
Like earlier they posted an article about historical data should have shown that Wisconsin was a swing state and not part of the fabled blue wall in the midwest, as shown by the incredibly tight victories for Gore, Kerry, and Trump.
He didn't have Wisconsin and PA as toss ups because he skewed the polls.

If you literally unskew the polls in 2016, his model gets a good bit closer to being right. Being closer than the rest doesn't make you right. And don't start some odds nonsense argument to say models can never be wrong either.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:20:31 AM
#84:


You keep saying "HE SKEWED THE POLLS" but the unadjusted average in Wisconsin had Clinton with 46.4% of the vote and the "skewed" version had Clinton with... 46.4% of the vote. The issue was once again an under performance by the third party candidates and a massive amount of undecided voters (Trumps average was 40-41%).

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:22:44 AM
#85:


Corrik7 posted...
And don't start some odds nonsense argument to say models can never be wrong either.

Because models are about probabilities, not being "right." Hence why there was still a 16% chance Trump would win Wisconsin. If there's a 16% chance you miss an attack in Fire Emblem you don't go "IMPOSSIBLE!"

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:23:10 AM
#86:


TheRock1525 posted...
You keep saying "HE SKEWED THE POLLS" but the unadjusted average in Wisconsin had Clinton with 46.4% of the vote and the "skewed" version had Clinton with... 46.4% of the vote. The issue was once again an under performance by the third party candidates and a massive amount of undecided voters (Trumps average was 40-41%).
You don't have to raise the % to skew the poll. You can lower %s elsewhere.

Under performance by the third parties? If the third parties did more, Hillary would have lost by more. They were siphoning her votes. Why do you think the Democrats spent so long working to get the third parties off the ballots in Wisconsin and PA and such this year.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons
10/16/20 9:23:32 AM
#87:


https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1317092373516701696?s=21

lmfaoooooooooo

---
Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:24:39 AM
#88:


TheRock1525 posted...
Because models are about probabilities, not being "right." Hence why there was still a 16% chance Trump would win Wisconsin. If there's a 16% chance you miss an attack in Fire Emblem you don't go "IMPOSSIBLE!"
His purpose is to analyze all the data and come up with a model that predicts the winner.

What you are saying is that the 99% Hillary models were just as right as his because they predicted 1% of the time Trump would win and it was that 1%.

That's not the purpose of the models. The purpose of the models is to correctly predict with all available data.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:25:21 AM
#89:


LordoftheMorons posted...
https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1317092373516701696?s=21

lmfaoooooooooo
I honestly don't get the retweet argument either.

You don't have to be retweeting something because you agree with it.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:28:17 AM
#90:


Corrik7 posted...
Under performance by the third parties? If the third parties did more, Hillary would have lost by more. They were siphoning her votes.

Incorrect. The expectation was the more conservative leaning libertarian options would grab 5% of the popular vote and they fell way short of that.

And I need you to read this so I'm going to bold it: undecided voters broke heavily for Trump on the day of election. This one of the key reasons for Trump's over performance on election day and his ability to make up the gap on election day. It had nothing to do with skewing polls.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337
10/16/20 9:28:59 AM
#91:


TheRock1525 posted...
You keep saying "HE SKEWED THE POLLS" but the unadjusted average in Wisconsin had Clinton with 46.4% of the vote and the "skewed" version had Clinton with... 46.4% of the vote. The issue was once again an under performance by the third party candidates and a massive amount of undecided voters (Trumps average was 40-41%).
rock as someone who has been in many arguments over how 538 works with corrik trust me this isn't going to go anywhere

538's "skews" are adjustments based on how a polling firm has historically over/underrated a party. If a firm consistently puts out results showing one party a point or two ahead of the actual results... it accounts for that. Like how we laugh at Rassmussen putting out absolutely crazy numbers that in no man's land until they hurriedly start releasing polls closer to what everyone else is saying in the last week or two so that they can try and point to those polls and claim they're a very serious pollster.

Silver isn't out there going "i think clinton should be up a point or two in this poll; just a gut feeling" lmfao.

---
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:31:30 AM
#92:


Corrik7 posted...
His purpose is to analyze all the data and come up with a model that predicts the winner.

No, his purpose is to create a model based on the data that's given to him and analyze the results given back to him. Pundits can go out and make predictions, which yes he will occasionally dab in punditry but he's in politics so what do you expect? But ultimately at the end of the day all a model can do is give probabilities.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:31:49 AM
#93:


TheRock1525 posted...
Incorrect. The expectation was the more conservative leaning libertarian options would grab 5% of the popular vote and they fell way short of that.

And I need you to read this so I'm going to bold it: undecided voters broke heavily for Trump on the day of election. This one of the key reasons for Trump's over performance on election day and his ability to make up the gap on election day. It had nothing to do with skewing polls.
I am sure you know the mindset of people who voted for who.

And, I have yet to see any Republican who said they were going to vote for a third party in 2016. I know many liberals in PA that voted for Gary Johnson however.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Strikes
10/16/20 9:33:50 AM
#94:


A victory by 1% is still a victory. Just the fact that you win at all has to be accounted for in a model, you need to do this in order to account for places that regularly go one direction by tight margins, like Georgia. As such, Clinton was given an 83.5% chance of winning Wisconsin despite it being historically close. Her chances there never dipped below about 70 even when Trump led the nationwide polls.

Youre absolutely right that models need historical data, of course they do, but it always carries a risk of overfitting which is what happened to those states in 2016.

---
I just decided to change this sig.
Blaaaaaaargh azuarc
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:36:12 AM
#95:


xp1337 posted...
rock as someone who has been in many arguments over how 538 works with corrik trust me this isn't going to go anywhere

538's "skews" are adjustments based on how a polling firm has historically over/underrated a party. If a firm consistently puts out results showing one party a point or two ahead of the actual results... it accounts for that. Like how we laugh at Rassmussen putting out absolutely crazy numbers that in no man's land until they hurriedly start releasing polls closer to what everyone else is saying in the last week or two so that they can try and point to those polls and claim they're a very serious pollster.

Silver isn't out there going "i think clinton should be up a point or two in this poll; just a gut feeling" lmfao.
And his skews were wrong. He was adding +1 or +2 to polls that had Clinton up already +10 and shit. He had polls that were oversampling the electorate for Democrats already to create their polls and adding an additional skew. Almost 7 out of 10 polls if not more always skewed to Clinton. No matter how clearly a Clinton outlier it was.

The polls are adjusted every year so a historical skew in favor of someone never made sense. And, it is likely why he stopped posting skews. If he hasn't skewed in 2016, he would have had a more accurate model. Simple as that. People from this year to then are always pointing to the skewed poll numbers for Clinton to why this year's polls don't matter. And it's why it is exhausting trying to explain to them they are insane to think Trump will win this year. They either call you a liar when showing you the skewed numbers or if they get it explain this is why polls can't be trusted because people can skew them.

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Peace___Frog
10/16/20 9:39:00 AM
#96:


We've been over this at least thirty times over the last four years. You guys are going into lms mode

---
~Peaf~
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mr Lasastryke
10/16/20 9:39:23 AM
#97:


Corrik7 posted...
You don't have to be retweeting something because you agree with it.

if you retweet something without comment, the implication is that you endorse it in some way, yes.

---
Geothermal terpsichorean ejectamenta
... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7
10/16/20 9:41:28 AM
#98:


Mr Lasastryke posted...
if you retweet something without comment, the implication is that you endorse it in some way, yes.
Except why? I mean I don't Twitter but I link to shit all the time, not because I agree with it. I assume it's just like sharing on Facebook. Because I think it's funny. Because I think it's stupid. Because I think it's accurate. Because I think it's self-ownage. Usually it's self explanatory

---
Xbox Live User Name - Corrik
Currently playing: Spider-Man (PS4), Quantum Break (X1)
... Copied to Clipboard!
xp1337
10/16/20 9:47:51 AM
#99:


Peace___Frog posted...
We've been over this at least thirty times over the last four years. You guys are going into lms mode
i am trying to save them from my past mistakes

(Last thing I'll say on this: Case in point, 538's model still incorporates house effects (the 'skews') which you'd know if you actually read their methodology. The only "difference" is that 538 no longer lists the adjusted margin alongside the raw margin on their actual list of polls page. But the model/polling average still uses them and it tells you that if you bother to read their explanations.)

---
xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:50:36 AM
#100:


Lightning Strikes posted...
A victory by 1% is still a victory. Just the fact that you win at all has to be accounted for in a model, you need to do this in order to account for places that regularly go one direction by tight margins, like Georgia. As such, Clinton was given an 83.5% chance of winning Wisconsin despite it being historically close. Her chances there never dipped below about 70 even when Trump led the nationwide polls.

Trump only led nationwide very briefly in a post convention bounce. And Clinton's chances dipped down to 65% that same time period. More importantly, Corrik keeps claiming Silver added points to Clinton when the Wisconsin adjustments literally helped Trump (as he went from 40.5% unadjusted to 41.0% adjusted). But there's nothing unreasonable about looking at a natural swingy state that went pretty solidly blue the last two election cycles and assume that the undecided voter allocation would largely be even or, at the very least, not heavy in one direction or another. Clinton literally hit her predicted mark at 46.4% in the state. But once again, undecided voters and an underperforming Libertarian Party (4.9% expected, 3.6% actual) helped Trump get the victory.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TheRock1525
10/16/20 9:55:49 AM
#101:


Corrik7 posted...
And his skews were wrong. He was adding +1 or +2 to polls that had Clinton up already +10 and shit.

This is factually incorrect.

---
TheRock ~ I had a name, my father called me Blues.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons
10/16/20 9:58:20 AM
#102:


LordoftheMorons posted...
https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1317092373516701696?s=21

lmfaoooooooooo
This is still hilarious because of Trump railing against 230 currently because of imaginary anti-conservative bias (which would be well in these companies legal rights anyway), but TIL section 230 also protects users from liability in addition to websites, so his lawyers argument (while Im still not sure its correct) is not as blatantly ridiculous as I thought

---
Congrats to azuarc, GotD2 Guru champ!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10