Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

You cannot extrapolate like that from such a small sample. I don't think you guys understand statistical analysis here. Doing that opens you up to all kinds of statistical errors since a small irregularity can have large consequences. Look up Power, type I and II errors, etc. there is a reason why in research there is an attempt to have the largest sample size possible.

Clinton did not do anything differently than her predecessors, including republican loved Colin Powell. All this stuff, including Benghazi, is such a transparent attempt at fabricating a controversy since it was always clear she was going to be the likely Democratic candidate. It's a shame that the media plays right into it

I didn't extrapolate anything. It was a conditional statement. IF it's representative of a similarly proportioned amount when compared to all the emails, that would be a big deal. Not necessarily for Hillary, but for whomever would be held responsible.

As far as I can tell, this is complete nonsense. Your entire point is that you wouldn't have a problem with Hillary using her own server as long as it was a magical server from the far future which could identify and refuse to transmit classified information? How is that even worth making us think about, much less having to read paragraph upon paragraph about? No such system exists or will ever exist. And if it did exist, it would be way more insecure than what happened here, because such a server would either need to have access to all classified information or contain within itself heuristics for defining all classified information. Come on now.

It is complete nonsense. It also is not even remotely my point.

MY point was that she should have never elected to use her private server for this (nor should any government official have done so) in the first place, UNLESS her private server was incapable of transmitting classified information. Obviously since that's not possible, it means that she should just not use it.

It was the equivalent of a parenthetical statement; a tangential distinction when constructing a logical argument. Seeing as how it was misinterpreted, perhaps it would have been best if I never brought it up.

 

[B-Dubs]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/648256644644671488

I was gonna say she shouldn't have invited Chris Christie onto the stage until I saw the video. Someone probably just leaned against something they shouldn't have.

 

[brainchild]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/648256026056089600



(video on the tweet)

Woah...

Eh, it wasn't as bad as I thought it might have been. Glad everyone's OK.

 

[tmarg]

I'm not sure some curtains falling down counts as the stage collapsing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm not sure some curtains falling down counts as the stage collapsing.

In the same way that a fetus counts as a non-human being.

 

[brainchild]

In the same way that a fetus counts as a non-human being.

I literally did a spit take with my orange juice when I read this, LMAO

 

[Hobbestetrician]

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/648256026056089600



(video on the tweet)

This bandstand wasn't double-bolted!

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm very thankful for Jindal right now. He appears to be helping with dragging the Republican brand down in our state, to the point where the Democratic gubernatorial candidate might actually be competitive this time around.

Here's a rimshot for the biggest punchline of Jindal's governorship:

John Bel Edwards (D) 24
David Vitter (R) 24
Scott Angelle (R) 15
Jay Dardenne (R) 14

John Bel Edwards (D) 45
David Vitter (R) 41

In the breakdown of undecided voters: Women are more undecided than men (23 percent to 14 percent); black voters are more undecided than white (27 percent to 12 percent); and Democrats and independents are more undecided than Republicans (25 percent and 23 percent to 9 percent). That could mean good news for Edwards, who polled best among each of those groups most likely to still be undecided.

 

[ivysaur12]

Since I wasn't about to do math, I covered the possibility that the 40 emails are not representative by speaking of a possibility that they are.

But since we now have an expert among us, what is the probability that a random sample of 40 emails out of a population of 30,000 would turn up the only two containing top secret material?

Well, one of the top secret materials in question an email containing a link to an article about the drone program, which is technically top-secret, but isn't in practice. I'm not sure if I'd count that as an example of "top-secret material" per se, given context.

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the full contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level.

Clinton didn't transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on. Former CIA director Leon Panetta and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have openly discussed it.

The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, the officials said. Several people, however, described this claim as tenuous.

This, I don't care about. It's been openly discussed. We all know it exits. It's a copy of a news article about the program. This is not what I'd consider "top secret" material at all. The fact that they're even telling us exactly what the email is means that it doesn't matter.

But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more problematic, officials said. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, they said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — receiving information the government considers secret through "open source" channels.

This, we have no context, but there seems to be a source of disagreement between agencies, which seems to be a lot of the classification issues that Hillary has run into. If it's just "parallel reporting", again -- who care? If not, yes, then it's concerning.

Now, if we're talking statistics, it's not great that one email out of 40 contains potentially sensitive information that maybe-shouldn't-but-we-don't-know-should-be-or-not material. It's kind of silly to even try to extrapolate that out with "well there's probably more!" when that'll just be done for us anyway over the coming months.

Here's a rimshot for the biggest punchline of Jindal's governorship:

I honestly have such a hard time believing this could happen. I'd love it if it did, but. But with this and the PPP poll, man.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Since I wasn't about to do math, I covered the possibility that the 40 emails are not representative by speaking of a possibility that they are.

But since we now have an expert among us, what is the probability that a random sample of 40 emails out of a population of 30,000 would turn up the only two containing top secret material?

The probability may be low but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate the data the way you did.

Also, just because you added the caveat that it was a "possibility" doesn't take away what you were attempting to allude with your post. It is also possible that every single one of the 30,000 email's have classified information, just as it is possible that the two email we already know about are the only emails that have classified information on them (or in this case, information that was later deemed classified)

I didn't extrapolate anything. It was a conditional statement. IF it's representative of a similarly proportioned amount when compared to all the emails, that would be a big deal. Not necessarily for Hillary, but for whomever would be held responsible.

It very likely is not representative of a similarly proportioned amount given that it is a very small sample size, and thus margin of error is extremely high. The likelyhood ratio is quite low for that to happen. It is possible that the ratio is more or less than what that sample represents, but that sample should not be used to extrapolate for the entire 30k emails... and yes, you did extrapolate. Those conditional statements are pretty meaningless in this context. If Hillary masterminded Benghazi, it would be a big deal. They are just meant to disparage without any actual substance behind them.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[brainchild]

It very likely is not representative of a similarly proportioned amount given that it is a very small sample size, and thus margin of error is extremely high. The likelyhood ratio is quite low for that to happen. It is possible that the ratio is more or less than what that sample represents, but that sample should not be used to extrapolate for the entire 30k emails... and yes, you did extrapolate. Those conditional statements are pretty meaningless in this context. If Hillary masterminded Benghazi, it would be a big deal. They are just meant to disparage without any actual substance behind them.

Meaningless though they may be, extrapolations they are not. Unless you mean "hypothetical extrapolations" or "conditional extrapolations", to which I would say, who the fuck cares? The point is that they weren't definitive assertions and would only be relevant in the event that the conditions were satisfied. Otherwise it's just a bunch of suppositions that shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[HylianTom]

Here's a rimshot for the biggest punchline of Jindal's governorship:

My favorite response to come out of this poll so far has been watching an LSU professor on Twitter trying to convince the Advocate reporter to release the crosstabs. I sat here giggling at the back-and-forth until she relented.

Once she posted the crosstabs, one really big thing stuck out: in Edwards vs Vitter, Edwards gets north of 30% of the white vote - that's plenty for winning statewide here. (For reference, Mary Landrieu got somewhere around the mid-teens when she lost re-election)

I want to believe.. I want to believe..

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I bet he's a total goober as a husband.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Will Jindal make it to January/Iowa caucus? Will be interesting to see what his financials look like. I'm assuming Graham is trying to make it to SC, and if he's as competent/efficient as McCain was in 08 (small staff, single bus, etc) he should be able to do that.

Gotta feel a bit bad for Santorum. True believer, has dedicated much of his life to evangelical fuckery, visited every town in Iowa back in 2012...yet can't even get to 2% because he has been out-crazy'd by candidates who haven't done much for "the movement." I bet Jindal's vapid attacks on him really get under his skin and rightfully so.

 

[dramatis]

Will Jindal make it to January/Iowa caucus? Will be interesting to see what his financials look like. I'm assuming Graham is trying to make it to SC, and if he's as competent/efficient as McCain was in 08 (small staff, single bus, etc) he should be able to do that.

From the table at the FEC site, you might get your answers soon. Next round of campaign finance summaries are due September 30 actually, so in like 2 days.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Take your time, Joe.

CNN Will Let Biden Debate Even If He Declares His Candidacy That Day

CNN will allow Vice President Joe Biden to participate in the first Democratic presidential debate on Oct. 13, even if he declares his candidacy as late as the day of the debate, according to criteria released Monday.

CNN's criteria states a candidate must "file a statement of candidacy or publicly state that a statement of candidacy will be filed with the Federal Election Commission by Oct. 14, 2015" and reach an average of 1 percent support in recognized polls from Aug. 1 to Oct. 10.

 

[Retromelon]

Meaningless though they may be, extrapolations they are not. Unless you mean "hypothetical extrapolations" or "conditional extrapolations", to which I would say, who the fuck cares?

What I am about to say has nothing to do with you brainchild so don't be offended.
I am likely the only person in the world that hates this, but I hate when people get futuristic with their tenses when engaged in argument. "I would say/I would argue" bitch are you saying it or not. It sounds so pompous and arrogant
Rant over

you have such a unique posting style.

thx mate

 

[ghstwrld]

the prez' un address is kind of dry tbh

 

[NeoXChaos]

What I am about to say has nothing to do with you brainchild so don't be offended.
I am likely the only person in the world that hates this, but I hate when people get futuristic with their tenses when engaged in argument. "I would say/I would argue" bitch are you saying it or not. It sounds so pompous and arrogant
Rant over

you have such a unique posting style.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Take your time, Joe.

CNN Will Let Biden Debate Even If He Declares His Candidacy That Day

Ted Turner never envisioned that his crown jewel would one day become the biggest thirst trap in news.

 

[And_Gignac]

"If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax," Donald J. Trump vows in his tax reform plan. "That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, 'I win.'"

He literally is a national socialist. Trump is a NAZI confirmed.

 

[Plinko]

He literally is a national socialist. Trump is a NAZI confirmed.

LOL...hilarious. I want that piece of paper that says "I win."

 

[ivysaur12]

An amazing, classy, amazing tax code.

(No Republican candidate has put as out detailed of policies has Trump has. Crazy)

EDIT: ALSO --

@mmurraypolitics
Planned Parenthood's fav/unfav in NBC/WSJ poll also unchanged:
July: 45% fav, 30% unfav
Sept: 47% fav, 31% unfav

 

[Plinko]

An amazing, classy, amazing tax code.

(No Republican candidate has put as out detailed of policies has Trump has. Crazy)

EDIT: ALSO --

I'm really surprised by this, but good for him. At least he's putting specifics into print.

 

[Aaron Strife]

My favorite response to come out of this poll so far has been watching an LSU professor on Twitter trying to convince the Advocate reporter to release the crosstabs. I sat here giggling at the back-and-forth until she relented.

Once she posted the crosstabs, one really big thing stuck out: in Edwards vs Vitter, Edwards gets north of 30% of the white vote - that's plenty for winning statewide here. (For reference, Mary Landrieu got somewhere around the mid-teens when she lost re-election)

I want to believe.. I want to believe..

Yeah I feel like this is the kind of thing I wouldn't really believe until it actually happened.

 

[NeoXChaos]

My favorite response to come out of this poll so far has been watching an LSU professor on Twitter trying to convince the Advocate reporter to release the crosstabs. I sat here giggling at the back-and-forth until she relented.

Once she posted the crosstabs, one really big thing stuck out: in Edwards vs Vitter, Edwards gets north of 30% of the white vote - that's plenty for winning statewide here. (For reference, Mary Landrieu got somewhere around the mid-teens when she lost re-election)

I want to believe.. I want to believe..

Is there a substantial number of white liberals in Louisiana to cut into the white vote deficit to make it to 30%? How much of Landreiu and Obama's votes came from minority and then from white liberals/moderates?

Obama 2012
40% 809,151

Landrieu 2014
44% 561,210

 

[Grexeno]

He literally is a national socialist. Trump is a NAZI confirmed.

This sounds..................good!?

 

[Poodlestrike]

This sounds..................good!?

He's also dropping taxes on the rich by 15 points.

So it's really just GWB, again.

 

[RustyNails]

Isn't Trump's plan just slightly more socialist than Jeb's? Other than that it sounds the same.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Isn't Trump's plan just slightly more socialist than Jeb's? Other than that it sounds the same.

Slightly more weighted towards the bottom is a better way to put it, IMO. Both are still doing across-the-board tax cuts, which is in no way socialist.

 

[Iolo]

Will Jindal make it to January/Iowa caucus? Will be interesting to see what his financials look like. I'm assuming Graham is trying to make it to SC, and if he's as competent/efficient as McCain was in 08 (small staff, single bus, etc) he should be able to do that.

http://www.theonion.com/article/lindsey-graham-struggling-stay-awake-while-driving-51183

 

[HylianTom]

Is there a substantial number of white liberals in Louisiana to cut into the white vote deficit to make it to 30%? How much of Landreiu and Obama's votes came from minority and then from white liberals/moderates?

Obama 2012
40% 809,151

Landrieu 2014
44% 561,210

I'm not sure, to be honest.

I looked it up - Landrieu won 18% of the white vote in the 2014 runoff.

Here's a more detailed look at the numbers from that election. The author doesn't think that a Louisiana Democrat can win 30% of the white vote, which lines-up with my slight wishfulness on this morning's poll.

 

[thepotatoman]

Peter Roskam not running for Speaker, still leaving only McCarthy and Webster. Webster is right in the middle between the establishment and the tea party, talking the talk but not always walking the walk when it comes down to voting. Tea Party would prefer someone else, but they have no one else as far as I can tell.

Paul Ryan endorsing Tom Price for majority leader, but he also endorsed Price last year for conference chair, which Price lost to Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I wonder if McMorris Rodgers has a chance at majority leader if the tea party splits their vote between Scalise and Price.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm not sure, to be honest.

I looked it up - Landrieu won 18% of the white vote in the 2014 runoff.

Here's a more detailed look at the numbers from that election. The author doesn't think that a Louisiana Democrat can win 30% of the white vote, which lines-up with my slight wishfulness on this morning's poll.

I think Landrieu probably bottomed out how many white voters in LA will vote for a Democrat. Even if Edwards does slightly better (which might be the case, since Landrieu was so tied to Obama), I don't think he'll crack 30%.

 

[Wilsongt]

Listening to the GOP biting at itself over Boner is delicious. NPR just had a house member from NC on railing against him and sayin he wants some guy from Florida to be the speaker because he believes in Judeo-Christian values and the Constitution.

I think it is safe to say that the constitution has become just like the bible for the GOP: A buffet where they pick and choose what to emphasize and ignore.

 

[Plinko]

Does Trump's tax cut eliminate the child tax credit or EITC? If so, isn't that just a stealthy tax increase for the middle-class?

 

[pigeon]

Does Trump's tax cut eliminate the child tax credit or EITC? If so, isn't that just a stealthy tax increase for the middle-class?

The only loopholes Trump calls out are:

* Increasing PEP
* Increasing Pease
* Life insurance interest
* Carried interest (but with some loopholes added!)

 

[ivysaur12]

 

[NeoXChaos]

University of Chicago. Axelrod introduced Bernie.

 

[ivysaur12]

Context.

 

[thepotatoman]

Listening to the GOP biting at itself over Boner is delicious. NPR just had a house member from NC on railing against him and sayin he wants some guy from Florida to be the speaker because he believes in Judeo-Christian values and the Constitution.

I think it is safe to say that the constitution has become just like the bible for the GOP: A buffet where they pick and choose what to emphasize and ignore.

Yeah, he's talking about Dan Webster, who also takes heat for not being pure enough.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's also a good chance Dan Webster's district is going to become a lot more swingy, so good luck with that.

 

[brainchild]

He literally is a national socialist. Trump is a NAZI confirmed.

Consider me legitimately surprised.

Watch out now, Trump! You keep making sensible policies and I just might have to give Bernie the ol' boot!

/s

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Using quick napkin math, a random sample of 30,000 emails at a 95% CL and a CI of 5 would require a sample of 379 emails. For the sake of illustration, let's say they actually did that instead of 40 and the ratio of confidential was the same so we found 19 emails. So then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 10 and 0 percent.

That's obviously not very helpful because the difference between zero and non-zero is essentially what we're trying to determine. Our confidence interval is too large because the value we're trying to determine is itself very small and near zero. So let's lower it to 2.

Well now we need a random sample of 2,223 emails. Again, for the sake of illustration, let's say they did sample that many and the ratio of confidential was again the same, so we found 111 emails. Then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 7 and 3 percent. If the number of confidential emails found was 50, then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 4.2 and 0.2 percent, and so on an so forth.

Obviously the actual number of confidential emails found in a larger sample is the unknown we need to draw conclusions, so we can't really say anything from the 2 in 40. And even when you do get the larger sample, it's possible that the number of emails found is so low that to make a real conclusion we need to re-sample from a larger pool because of the necessity for a smaller confidence interval.

 

[ivysaur12]

Using quick napkin math, a random sample of 30,000 emails at a 95% CL and a CI of 5 would require a sample of 379 emails. For the sake of illustration, let's say they actually did that instead of 40 and the ratio of confidential was the same so we found 19 emails. So then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 10 and 0 percent.

That's obviously not very helpful because the difference between zero and non-zero is essentially what we're trying to determine. Our confidence interval is too large because the value we're trying to determine is itself very small and near zero. So let's lower it to 2.

Well now we need a random sample of 2,223 emails. Again, for the sake of illustration, let's say they did sample that many and the ratio of confidential was again the same, so we found 111 emails. Then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 7 and 3 percent. If the number of confidential emails found was 50, then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 4.2 and 0.2 percent, and so on an so forth.

Obviously the actual number of confidential emails found in a larger sample is the unknown we need to draw conclusions, so we can't really say anything from the 2 in 40. And even when you do get the larger sample, it's possible that the number of emails found is so low that to make a real conclusion we need to re-sample from a larger pool because of the necessity for a smaller confidence interval.

For the record, it's maybe 1 in 40, since one of the emails was concerning a program that's top secret but has been discussed in public by government officials for some time (the drone program).

Not like that actually affects your math.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

What's liberal about lowering taxes on the rich below the initial Reagan tax cut levels?

 

[pigeon]

You're equating allowing and not opposing, and i can't quite see why.

Nor do i see why the US should interfere in Syria more than it already has, for that matter.

So to come back to this, I think the point I am trying to make is that we're already opposing Russia by proxy (through opposing Assad). So I feel like it's too late to say "well we'll just allow Russia to save Assad." But it's a thin argument, I agree.

I basically agree also that we probably shouldn't have intervened in Syria. It's a hard truth but I think that if we couldn't get multilateral support for action we should not have tried to intervene alone. (And, I mean, it looks like Obama didn't really want to intervene either.)

So probably you're more or less correct on this issue.

Trump is still an idiot on the other issues.

 

[brainchild]

Using quick napkin math, a random sample of 30,000 emails at a 95% CL and a CI of 5 would require a sample of 379 emails. For the sake of illustration, let's say they actually did that instead of 40 and the ratio of confidential was the same so we found 19 emails. So then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 10 and 0 percent.

That's obviously not very helpful because the difference between zero and non-zero is essentially what we're trying to determine. Our confidence interval is too large because the value we're trying to determine is itself very small and near zero. So let's lower it to 2.

Well now we need a random sample of 2,223 emails. Again, for the sake of illustration, let's say they did sample that many and the ratio of confidential was again the same, so we found 111 emails. Then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 7 and 3 percent. If the number of confidential emails found was 50, then we could be 95% sure that the percentage of confidential emails is somewhere between 4.2 and 0.2 percent, and so on an so forth.

Obviously the actual number of confidential emails found in a larger sample is the unknown we need to draw conclusions, so we can't really say anything from the 2 in 40. And even when you do get the larger sample, it's possible that the number of emails found is so low that to make a real conclusion we need to re-sample from a larger pool because of the necessity for a smaller confidence interval.

For the record, it's maybe 1 in 40, since one of the emails was concerning a program that's top secret but has been discussed in public by government officials for some time (the drone program).

Not like that actually affects your math.

We have went into the deep end, bros. I think it's time we swim back!

 

[ivysaur12]

Another Challenger Approaches?

http://www.12news.com/story/news/20...sman-says-mccain-cant-beat-democrat/72931456/

Republican Congressman David Schweikert says GOP Sen. John McCain can't beat Democratic Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick next fall -- if he makes it that far.

Is that a sign Schweikert will try to take down a senator he claims once labeled him a "tea party hobbit"?

Schweikert's not saying yes, but he isn't exactly saying no.

I spoke to Schweikert this weekend after getting calls from Republicans telling me the three-term congressman from Scottsdale hadn't ruled out a run.

Back in February, Schweikert kinda sorta said "no." "My wife's not thrilled," he said at the time.

On Saturday he revealed that he and his wife, Joyce, have been trying to adopt a child for the last five or six years. Schweikert, who is 53, has written movingly of his own adoption.

"Do you follow delusions of grandeur or try to pursue something more important?" he said rhetorically.

But then he added, "It's hard when outside groups come to you with polling" showing McCain is weak. Congressman Matt Salmon, who is close to Schweikert, saw the same polling but has taken a pass on the race.

A May poll showed that prospective McCain primary matchups against Schweikert or Matt Salmon were both tossups.

The bigger story, Schweikert said, is McCain can't hold his seat.

"If he makes it through the primary, Ms. Kirkpatrick will be our senator," Schweikert said. "His numbers make Dick Lugar look like a walk in the park."

The Lugar scenario -- the 80-year-old, six-term Indiana senator was ousted by a tea party candidate in 2012 -- is the nightmare scenario for McCain.

McCain, who will turn 80 the day before the 2016 GOP primary, is seeking a sixth term. Arizona tea partiers have had their daggers out for McCain for years.

State Sen. Kelli Ward of Lake Havasu City has been carrying the tea party banner in the primary. But she has not attracted any financial pledges from conservative groups that would have to bankroll a serious McCain challenger. Schweikert has close ties to those groups.

Political newcomer Alex Meluskey has also entered the Republican primary.

But as the Summer of Trump gives way to the Fall of Boehner, the moment seems ripe for a conservative outsider like Schweikert to take on the ultimate insider McCain.

"It's fascinating," Schweikert said, using his favorite adjective. "It'd be brutal."

So will he primary McCain? "It's nice being flattered," Schweikert said. "It's just not our life's priority right now."

But one person familiar with Schweikert's thinking indicates a decision on the race isn't final yet.

McCain "has never taken any election for granted," said Lorna Romero, spokeswoman for the McCain campaign. "That's why he's already working hard. He has a broad base of support throughout Arizona, and looks forward to the campaign ahead."