• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joeytj

Banned
PBY said:
http://53eig.ht/2cNSOSR

New piece from N Silver - very sobering if you acknowledge some of his assumptions.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there that we already haven't seen from Silver or talked about it here. He admits that the ABC/WaPo poll was a worry for Clinton. But he also says that the debate, like the convention, were turning points in the campaign, and so far, that's benefited Clinton.
 
T

thebloo

Member
He's still treating the election like it's a sporting event. If you're up by 10 and your opponent goes on a 10-2 run, yes, you're two missed possessions from potentially losing the game.

But demographics don't work like that. Trump coming from 9 behind to 2 in PA (assuming it's a real comeback) doesn't mean anything more than a tightening. It doesn't mean he's one "play" away from leading PA.
 
Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
The article also continues to illustrate 538's over-emphasis on polls that aren't great for Clinton seemingly in an effort to prove they're right. We got a string of like 6 polls from good pollsters that all had Clinton ahead 4-6 late last week and then ABC drops a +2 poll and Nate is like, "See. Still close." I thought cherry-picking was bad...

He also keeps bringing up trends and differences from the last time each pollster ran their polls while also insisting that polling is insanely volatile and noisy. If that's the case, why make such dramatic adjustments if polls shift a bit? Isn't that to be expected to some degree?
 
P

PBY

Banned
Also lol
@newtgingrich
Clinton is a fox who knows many things you can fact check. Trump is a hedgehog who knows one very big thing: We need change.
 
T

thebloo

Member
These two pictures show the main difference for me. One predicts elections, the other is just a mathematical equation.

538:

FiveThirtyEight.png


PredictWise:

PredictWise_September25_HistPres.png
 
N

nature boy

Member
The more I revisit the 2012 debates, the more I think Trump is going to crumble at some point over 90 minutes.

Don't think he has the stamina for that intensity.
 
J

Joeytj

Banned
codhand said:
very sobering if you acknowledge some of his assumptions
Click to expand...

Hehe.

Anyway, I've gone in the last week from being confident in HIllary's debate performance to panic, to confident again, then to panic, and so on.

I realized that my (and a lot of others') worry isn't so much in HIllary's abilities. Is that it won't matter because Trump has successfully changed the rules of the game. My hope is that the debates, so far, are immune to this and Trump won't be able to will it into a clown show like the primary debates (which were organized by tv networks for ratings).

Of course, Hillary also did well in the primary debates and won in the end. I remember the great reviews she got after the first debate against Bernie and the rest of the Dems, after a couple of weeks of Democrats bedwetting about Hillary's changes. That was exactly a year ago.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Blader said:
I think when a lot of people say Cheney was in control, they're imagining Cheney whispering things into Bush's ear and then Bush just doing it. Obviously that wasn't the case. What did happen, though, was that when they were putting the team together at the beginning, Cheney staffed many of their lower-level positions with his people, or people who feed into his worldview.

So it's not that Cheney told Bush we need to invade Iraq, but that he filled the White House with people predisposed to "intel" about the need to invade, which then goes up the ladder to, eventually, reach Bush.

I'm simplifying things but that was the gist of it. It was only when the DOJ was on the verge of a mass exodus of resignations, which Bush learned about at the tail end of the 11th hour, did he really realize that the bubble chamber that had been put up around him.
Click to expand...

When you hire someone to head up your Veep search and they come back and tell you "Yup, I looked at all the options and I'm the best one!", you should probably take that as a warning sign.
 
R

Retro

Member
PBY said:
Also lol
@newtgingrich
Clinton is a fox who knows many things you can fact check. Trump is a hedgehog who knows one very big thing: We need change.
Click to expand...

Trump is a rodent who is covered in his own chewed-up feces and looks like he'd be uncomfortable and even a little painful to be near. And he's gotta go. FAST.

Also, the fable has the fox get killed because he thinks of too many ways to escape instead of acting on them, while the hedgehog (or cat, in the version I remember as a kid) just pulls the same trick they always do and escapes. If he's suggesting that screaming offensive shit has always worked for Trump and he should continue to do so, these debates are going to be interesting.

Also also, he's kind of calling Hillary a MILF (or is it GILF?).

Also also also, foxes eat hedgehogs. Like, as a playful snack.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
Seems like Newt in a roundabout way is saying. Hillary knows what the fuck she's doing. She has facts and she knows what she's talking about.

Basically. Logic and facts against rhetoric.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Zukkoyaki said:
The article also continues to illustrate 538's over-emphasis on polls that aren't great for Clinton seemingly in an effort to prove they're right. We got a string of like 6 polls from good pollsters that all had Clinton ahead 4-6 late last week and then ABC drops a +2 poll and Nate is like, "See. Still close." I thought cherry-picking was bad...

He also keeps bringing up trends and differences from the last time each pollster ran their polls while also insisting that polling is insanely volatile and noisy. If that's the case, why make such dramatic adjustments if polls shift a bit? Isn't that to be expected to some degree?
Click to expand...

Someone else said it, and I'm reminded of it more and more, that Nate is a guy who did really well in stats calculation classes but never took any theory. His arguments for his models are unsatisfactory (and sometimes outright incorrect).
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
AntraxSuicide said:
Someone else said it, and I'm reminded of it more and more, that Nate is a guy who did really well in stats calculation classes but never took any theory. His arguments for his models are unsatisfactory (and sometimes outright incorrect).
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bad Nate is starting to irk me. He ignored most of the polling for Trump throughout the primary and now is basically a chicken with his head cut off. I don't know what he did to his model, but something feels not right about it.

Maybe it's that there is more noise this election cycle than in 08 or 12 and his analysis can't handle it, but I'm not sure why the model seems to revert to the mean when Clinton is doing well, but really seems to be boosting momentum towards trump.

Again, if this is predictive analytics it shouldn't swing this much when new data comes in, and I don't know how to explain why it moves so much on a daily basis when the point of predictive analytics is to slowly trend-line change, and with time-value moving onwards and pure pollings value increasing the volatility should be going down not up.

I'm not a statistician, but just understanding Options pricing gives me enough knowledge to know that the baked in value of polls should be increasing over time, and these polls have been generally good for Clinton this week.

It's weird.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Makai said:
The only people who watch debates have already made up their mind and are rooting for their guy.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. There are a large number of undecideds and a lot of soft support. For example, Hillary has a chance to claw back some of the support she gained after the DNC, unless you believe her bounce wasn't real, and certainly fewer people watched the DNC than will watch the debate. I think the difference wasn't all Trump crashing after his attack on Khan.
 
M

Makai

Member
Grexeno said:
This is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
Statistical evidence is that there is no correlation between media consensus of debate performance and bump in polls. Most famous example is Ford having an awful debate where he said Poland is an ally and then got a poll bump. The point of debates is fundraising
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Since Hillary is supposedly going first (?), I hope she includes something in her opening statement to throw Trump off. "Steady hands, not small minds" or something
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
I like how he's stuck on the point that Clinton is only leading in states that just barely get her over 270 in his model.

Like yeah because your model is skewing against Clinton. If you took Florida's polling average at face value that would effectively shut Trump out but you've goosed it for him by giving more weight to older polls than newer and flipping results with the adjusted leader crap. Monmouth has Clinton up 5, has A+ methodology according to you, is the second most recent poll in the mix and yet only the seventh heaviest poll because...?
 
S

Sianos

Member
This recent trend of people defending hypothetical neo-nazi protests is one of the few great examples of what "virtue signalling" actually means I've seen - and it manages to make a salient point about privilege as well.

I understand the principle of consistent enforcement being extolled in the defenses, but it feels as though the defenders forget the physical world actually still exists as well.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Clinton's Latino groundgame has started

In Virginia, Iowa, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina, Clinton campaign organizers will descend upon Latino churches and encourage parishioners to register to vote during “Domingos de Acción” — Sundays of action. They will also encourage the faithful to vote early, organizing carpools to in-person voting sites in the coming weeks. The campaign plans to deploy its surrogates to fan out to Latino churches as well.

The program seeks to replicate the success of “Souls to the Polls” — a program among African-American churches that organizes buses to take parishioners to the polls after church services in states that allow early voting. A greater share of black voters cast their ballots via early in-person voting than any other ethnic group.
Click to expand...
“Domingos de Acción is a call to action for members of the Latino faith community to educate, register, and mobilize voters every Sunday leading up to Election Day,” Lorella Praeli, the Clinton campaign’s Latino Vote Director, said in a statement. The program “seizes on the unique opportunity Sundays provide for faith leaders to come together and educate the faith community about the stakes in this election and the importance of voting,” she added.

This Sunday in Iowa, Clinton campaign representatives will address three Latino church congregations about in-person early voting, which begins next week in the swing state. In Florida, the campaign will hold Sundays of Action at about 15 Latino churches every week, registering voters until the Oct. 11 deadline and then raising awareness about early voting, which starts in late October. In some churches, faith leaders will organize carpools to take parishioners to the polls.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
105
8K
AndrewRyan replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom