Support NeoGAF

[Bowdz]

Tim Kaine was on Univision today? Glad they're finally getting on on the right networks.

https://twitter.com/despiertamerica/status/780405953027989504

Fucking finally. Thus should be Kaine's weekly ritual.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because they don't like her =/= they aren't passionate about women's rights.

ding ding ding

 

[PBY]

I had a dream as well. They were both very calm and were both just quietly talking.

Lowkey I think this is what will happen tonight.

 

[lenovox1]

Lowkey I think this is what will happen tonight.

Me, too.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Because they don't like her =/= they aren't passionate about women's rights.

Not liking her is one thing, but not voting for her *is* not passionate about women's rights.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Because they don't like her =/= they aren't passionate about women's rights.

They care so much about women's rights that they:

1. Regurgitate sexist complaints about Hillary

2. Would rather put abortion and other women's issues in jeopardy than vote for Hillary

Excuse me for not believing they really care all that much about women as much as they say they do.

 

[Teggy]

James Taranto is legendary. No one else would interview the Dilbert guy.

Was it posted that Adams "officially" changed his endorsement to Trump? Supposedly he was endorsing Hillary because he had to because he lived in California or some other nonsense. As if anyone reading his stuff would think he was endorsing Hillary.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I think Nate Silver is unfairly roasted here sometimes, but with that image I Can't Even anymore.

I do think some of the criticism is unfair and based on him telling people things they don't want to hear. That's not to say there aren't legitimate reasons to question his model. 2008 and 2012 were in many ways easy elections to call. Polling was relatively stable in both cases and, with a few exceptions, state performance tended to highly correlate with how those states voted in recent elections. This year there are a higher number of undecided/third party responses and statewide movements don't seem quite as predictable. If nothing else, this election seems to be a tougher test for the modelers, 538 included.

My problem with Nate is that it's like he's 100% pundit now. It seems like every day there's a new tweet or article which might as well just say: "KEY RACE ALERT: The horse race is a DEAD HEAT." His smugness also really grates on me given that he was the same way during the Republican primaries when he constantly reminded people that Trump couldn't possibly win the nomination.

Could you tell me why the consensus opinion soured on Benchmark? Whatever their misstep was, I missed it.

I seem to recall a bunch of opinions turning when Benchmark got into a Twitter argument with Dave Wasserman and Nate Cohn about their benchmarks. In the process Wasserman and Cohn made good points (basically, that their benchmarks were performing poorly in counties with low black populations) and their defense of their model was troubling to me on two levels. The first was that it showed some statistical misconceptions, and the second was that they seemed to be cherry picking to make themselves look good. Speaking personally, this made me take a hard look at their record and I found the following issues.

-They seem more skilled at self-promotion than at modeling. They certainly loved to talk about how great their model performed, but if you took a step back the overall results weren't actually anything special.

-One of the ways they inflated their performance was, as I noted above, cherry picking. They would talk a ton about states where their model came close to the actual result while ignoring states where it didn't. Or, more egregiously, they would take a state where they were off and say something like "the polls were off in this state, had you just taken our demographic model and ignored polling data we would've nailed it."

-Outright deceptive practices. They liked to refer to themselves as the most accurate forecaster in the primaries, both on Twitter and in their Kickstarter. The only problem? They were using a rating system from some random guy on Reddit and, in particular, using his ratings from the middle of the primaries. By the end of the primaries they had fallen behind 538 according to this guy's metrics, yet they used an older version of his ratings in their Kickstarter ad. This I found to be downright unethical.

-As alluded to above, their model didn't actually seem to tell much that you couldn't glean from the black population of a county. They defended their record by a chart of their performance in counties with less than 20% black population. There were a number of issues. The first is that the performance wasn't actually so hot, but they seemed to think it was because they were misinterpreting the statistics. The second was that 20% is actually rather high for black population given that the black population of the US as a whole is less than 14%. Partly to investigate this issue and partly as a data analysis project I examined their data. When you set a filter to only examine counties with less than 5% black population (which is a lot of counties) the result was unmistakeable. You could've used it as an example of uncorrelated data in a stats textbook.

Long story short, my problem with them is that they're just not that good but they hype up their own work in a misleading fashion. What their behavior really reminds me of is that of a sports gambling "tout" who tries to get people to buy their picks. The techniques they use to try and impress people are virtually the same.

 

[StoOgE]

Guys,

Hillary Clinton has been in the fucking public arena with a billion dollar hate machine aimed squarely at her forehead for 40 fucking years, and you think some oversized oompa loompa who brought up his dick size in a previous debate is going to be the one to phase her on national TV?

 

[whyamihere]

CNN poll has McGinty +3

 

[Blader]

I actually kind of want her to lose Ohio, for no other reason than to shut up people who claim Ohio determines the winner based on the last x amount of elections. Because I hate when states are paraded around as the end all be all of the election. It makes it seem like there's no point in bothering to vote outside of that state.

You'd think a popular governor hating Trump would help more, guess not. I actually am not confident in Ohio, but I think she makes it up with NC or some other surprise traditionally red state.

Someone mentioned many pages back that the state GOP in Ohio is siding with Trump and the RNC over Kasich, so Kasich's opposition to Trump won't end up pushing the needle very much (at least, not among many needle-pushable voters).

Is it me, or maybe because Obama was a better candidate and handled it better, but does it seem like the sexism Hillary has to deal with this year is far worse than the racism Obama had to deal with?

It seems wayyy worse to me. It's so blatant sometimes, but you call it out and you just get told to stop playing the woman card.

Is it because racism is just easier to point at? "Obama has a funny name, he's not a real American" is a lot more blatant than "I just don't like her. She's not genuine. She should smile and joke more" which is just subtle enough to sound like legit criticism, but is formed from deep rooted sexism.

Sexism is baked into the presidential campaign process. It's built around rewarding masculine characteristics/traits.

Tim Kaine was on Univision today? Glad they're finally getting on on the right networks.

https://twitter.com/despiertamerica/status/780405953027989504

Tim Kaine Harmonica Tour 2016

 

[IggyChooChoo]

It's like he's 100% pundit now. It seems like every day there's a new tweet or article which might as well just say: "KEY RACE ALERT: The horse race is a dead heat." His smugness also really grates on me given that he was the same way during the Republican primaries when he constantly reminded people that Trump couldn't possibly win the nomination.

I seem to recall a bunch of opinions turning when Benchmark got into a Twitter argument with Dave Wasserman and Nate Cohn about their benchmarks. In the process Wasserman and Cohn made good points (basically, that their benchmarks were performing poorly in counties with low black populations) and their defense of their model was troubling to me on two levels. The first was that it showed some statistical misconceptions, and the second was that they seemed to be cherry picking to make themselves look good. Speaking personally, this made me take a hard look at their record and I found the following issues.

-They seem more skilled at self-promotion than at modeling. They certainly loved to talk about how great their model performed, but if you took a step back the overall results weren't actually anything special.

-One of the ways they inflated their performance was, as I noted above, cherry picking. They would talk a ton about states where their model came close to the actual result while ignoring states where it didn't. Or, more egregiously, they would take a state where they were off and say something like "the polls were off in this state, had you just taken our demographic model and ignored polling data we would've nailed it."

-Outright deceptive practices. They liked to refer to themselves as the most accurate forecaster in the primaries, both on Twitter and in their Kickstarter. The only problem? They were using a rating system from some random guy on Reddit and, in particular, using his ratings from the middle of the primaries. By the end of the primaries they had fallen behind 538 according to this guy's metrics, yet they used an older version of his ratings in their Kickstarter ad. This I found to be downright unethical.

-As alluded to above, their model didn't actually seem to tell much that you couldn't glean from the black population of a county. They defended their record by a chart of their performance in counties with less than 20% black population. There were a number of issues. The first is that the performance wasn't actually so hot, but they seemed to think it was because they were misinterpreting the statistics. The second was that 20% is actually rather high for black population given that the black population of the US as a whole is less than 14%. Partly to investigate this issue and partly as a data analysis project I examined their data. When you set a filter to only examine counties with less than 5% black population (which is a lot of counties) the result was unmistakeable. You could've used it as an example of uncorrelated data in a stats textbook.

Long story short, my problem with them is that they're just not that good but they hype up their own work in a misleading fashion. What their behavior really reminds me of is that of a sports gambling "tout" who tries to get people to buy their picks. The techniques they use to try and impress people are virtually the same.

Thank you for the comprehensive, thoughtful reply!

 

[GutsOfThor]

Lowkey I think this is what will happen tonight.

Me too. People are hyping this up way too much.

 

[Crocodile]

Not liking her is one thing, but not voting for her *is* not passionate about women's rights.

They care so much about women's rights that they:

1. Regurgitate sexist complaints about Hillary

2. Would rather put abortion and other women's issues in jeopardy than vote for Hillary

Excuse me for not believing they really care all that much about women as much as they say they do.

ding ding ding

People need to put their "money" where their mouths are. It's the same thing as saying you "care about the environment" but would then vote for the Libertarian ticket (or Trump LOL). Such an issue isn't actually that pressing an issue to you if you would vote that way.

 

[Gutek]

Guys,

Hillary Clinton has been in the fucking public arena with a billion dollar hate machine aimed squarely at her forehead for 40 fucking years, and you think some oversized oompa loompa who brought up his dick size in a previous debate is going to be the one to phase her on national TV?

No, but if she keeps being defensive without giving answers the public likes, she will be declared the loser of this debate.

 

[Plinko]

Guys,

Hillary Clinton has been in the fucking public arena with a billion dollar hate machine aimed squarely at her forehead for 40 fucking years, and you think some oversized oompa loompa who brought up his dick size in a previous debate is going to be the one to phase her on national TV?

I don't see many people arguing Hillary will be "phased" by Trump. I think the far greater worry is that Trump doesn't drool all over himself and the media says he "outperformed" her at the debate.

 

[Boke1879]

No, but if she keeps being defensive without giving answers the public likes, she will be declared the loser of this debate.

What do you mean. She'll outline policy. That's not being defensive. The email thing. There's no good answer for that. Hopefully that doesn't take too much time.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't even want to watch the debates lol, I fear they will be a trainwreck

 

[RustyNails]

Lowkey I think this is what will happen tonight.

Right. Hillary will steal Lowkey Trump's lunch money. Pray tell, when has a Lowkey Trump ever appeared? You guys are something. Fretting about 1% chance that a nice, schoolboy Trump who did all his homework shows up, in which case Hillary still devours him as opposed to the 99% chance of classic Trump from primaries. Media will say Trump behaved, looked prrsidential, but that's it. He gets thrashed in everything else.

This will happen. Lowkey Trump will show up and stay Lowkey for 5 minutes only. Then he will begin to unravel. That is it.

 

[RastaMentality]

When has Trump ever stayed calm while someone came sideways at him during all 12 of those debates? Just constant fretting about unlikely scenarios.

 

[IamDodongo]

I don't even want to watch the debates lol, I fear they will be a trainwreck

Watch them. This stuff is important, and the next President will affect your life for years to come.

 

[Wilsongt]

I am ready to table flip at the fuckery that will happen tonight, and since it's a work night no alcohol for me.

 

[Emarv]

The thing that keeps me calm is the fact that Trump has ADHD and the shortest attention span. He didn't do real debate prep because he can't focus that long.

I just don't see how he stays attentive for 90 minutes straight. I just don't believe it.

 

[BrokenFiction]

Notorious RBG confirmed.

Speaking at the Temple Emanu-El Skirball Center in New York City on Wednesday evening, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she does 20 push-ups every day, as well as 30-second planks.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-pushups/

 

[Plinko]

When has Trump ever stayed calm while someone came sideways at him during all 12 of those debates? Just constant fretting about unlikely scenarios.

He made it through all of those debates with everyone attacking him, though. Perhaps the contrast wasn't enough and will be exemplified with Clinton, but we'll see.

 

[Bowdz]

Notorious RBG confirmed.



http://fortune.com/2016/09/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-pushups/

Good shit RBG.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

For political junkies, none of you bedwetters seemed to watch the CiC forum. The media was a disaster there, calling Trump calm and constantly asking Hillary email questions.

You know how that turned out? With Matt Lauer being mocked into oblivion. Calm down. God this thread is insufferable. 2012 would've had me asking a mod to ban my account until it was over.

 

[dramatis]

This is bullshit. Millenials DO care about gender equality.

They may not have historical context for what she's doing, but they definitely do care about this.

Because they don't like her =/= they aren't passionate about women's rights.

Are they? If they were, they would vote for the first female president regardless of whether or not they like her, because it is a huge step forward for women's rights. But they're stuck up and hung up on garbage about how much they dislike her—because their emotions are what should draw the line between "women's rights" and "Hillary Clinton", is it?

We have on this forum guys who will proclaim themselves supporters of feminism, then wonder why there is censorship of their scantily clad loli female characters.

A guy with a rainbow avatar denoting his support for gay marriage and rights, living in the UK, shitting on Hillary Clinton by saying she has no charisma and sounds like a grandma. Said guy is a heavy Jeremy Corbyn supporter, because Jeremy Corbyn is so charismatic.

A guy who is quite into statistics who would sooner praise an old white man for making it to second place in a nationwide primary while claiming the woman actually who won the nationwide primary, the first woman to ever do so, is shit.

A guy who argues heavily against sexist female character designs on gaming side only to adamantly double down on characterizing Hillary Clinton based on how she decided to handle her marriage to Bill.

Yes, I'm sure all these people care a lot about women's rights. They just don't care enough to respect the accomplishments of this woman and what those accomplishments mean for women's rights, because she's Hillary Clinton.

Passionate about women's rights? Which one of them actually talked about women's healthcare as a major issue during the primaries? About equal pay beyond mentioning it as a footnote amidst chatter about inequality and Wall Street? Paid family leave? Violence against women? Did they care about Planned Parenthood when PP endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Millennials sure are all the rage about racial inequality, criminal justice, economic inequality. But the only "women's rights" issue that get covered at length in the media and in social media is when rape is involved. That's how severe it has to be before they care. "Passionate about women's rights"? It's mostly lip service.

 

[Gutek]

For political junkies, none of you bedwetters seemed to watch the CiC forum. The media was a disaster there, calling Trump calm and constantly asking Hillary email questions.

You know how that turned out? With Matt Lauer being mocked into oblivion. Calm down. God this thread is insufferable. 2012 would've had me asking a mod to ban my account until it was over.

It really doesn't matter what happened to Matt Lauer in the mainstream media. Polls are telling a different story. No bump for Clinton, no lull for Trump.

 

[darkstar0155]

I know a lot of people who plan on voting for her who still say this.

Oh for sure, I just no a lot of people voting Johnson (atm) that give me this as their reason.

 

[Wilsongt]

Are they? If they were, they would vote for the first female president regardless of whether or not they like her, because it is a huge step forward for women's rights. But they're stuck up and hung up on garbage about how much they dislike her—because their emotions are what should draw the line between "women's rights" and "Hillary Clinton", is it?

We have on this forum guys who will proclaim themselves supporters of feminism, then wonder why there is censorship of their scantily clad loli female characters.

A guy with a rainbow avatar denoting his support for gay marriage and rights, living in the UK, shitting on Hillary Clinton by saying she has no charisma and sounds like a grandma. Said guy is a heavy Jeremy Corbyn supporter, because Jeremy Corbyn is so charismatic.

A guy who is quite into statistics who would sooner praise an old white man for making it to second place in a nationwide primary while claiming the woman actually who won the nationwide primary, the first woman to ever do so, is shit.

A guy who argues heavily against sexist female character designs on gaming side only to adamantly double down on characterizing Hillary Clinton based on how she decided to handle her marriage to Bill.

Yes, I'm sure all these people care a lot about women's rights. They just don't care enough to respect the accomplishments of this woman and what those accomplishments mean for women's rights, because she's Hillary Clinton.

Passionate about women's rights? Which one of them actually talked about women's healthcare as a major issue during the primaries? About equal pay beyond mentioning it as a footnote amidst chatter about inequality and Wall Street? Paid family leave? Violence against women? Did they care about Planned Parenthood when PP endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Millennials sure are all the rage about racial inequality, criminal justice, economic inequality. But the only "women's rights" issue that get covered at length in the media and in social media is when rape is involved. That's how severe it has to be before they care. "Passionate about women's rights"? It's mostly lip service.

But Stein is running too. That gives them a woman to vote for or some shit.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

He made it through all of those debates with everyone attacking him, though. Perhaps the contrast wasn't enough and will be exemplified with Clinton, but we'll see.

He benefited from the chaos where he could pick on Rand or Jeb or Marco at his choosing. Trump has never fared well when he had to go 1v1. Look at the Fiorina exchange as example, or his fist debate exchange with Cruz. When he has to confront someone 1 on 1, he has always backed down.

 

[Boke1879]

IF a subdued Trump shows up like that one debate in the primaries. I can see him getting rocked with shit like him being uninterested, not wanting to be there, "where did his passion god?"

Trump will most likely be Trump and that's what most people are expecting. If he's subdued Hillary still beats him on substance.

 

[Plinko]

He benefited from the chaos where he could pick on Rand or Jeb or Marco at his choosing. Trump has never fared well when he had to go 1v1. Look at the Fiorina exchange as example, or his fist debate exchange with Cruz. When he has to confront someone 1 on 1, he has always backed down.

Right, which is much of the intrigue factor for me tonight.

 

[Y2Kev]

He made it through all of those debates with everyone attacking him, though. Perhaps the contrast wasn't enough and will be exemplified with Clinton, but we'll see.

I actually don't agree with this. Trump went largely ignored for most of the primary until South Carolina. In that second to last debate, Rubio and Cruz started name checking each other so they could both go after trump. And they DID get him, on trump university especially. Rubio then sunk himself by going into the gutter.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

But Stein is running too. That gives them a woman to vote for or some shit.

They wouldn't vote for her either. Or Liz Warren. Or Kamala Harris.

There will always be the "I want to vote for a woman, but not this woman" posts, and it doesn't really matter which woman you run.

 

[thebloo]

Btw, that last FL poll from their CoC had Trump up 4 last month.

Trend lines!

Man, this thread is in 5th gear.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

He made it through all of those debates with everyone attacking him, though. Perhaps the contrast wasn't enough and will be exemplified with Clinton, but we'll see.

He generally spoke for 20-25 minutes across three hours.

 

[metalslimer]

The subdued Trump everyone is worried about showing up got roasted by the media because he let everyone run all over him and he looked like he didn't want to be there. I also have never heard Trump speak for 90 seconds on one topic without a teleprompter before. If he starts repeating himself over and over he will look like a fool. The best thing I can see for him is if he speaks really slow and throws in a few facts to chew up time

 

[Pyrokai]

Omfg what happened to the 538 polls?! Wtf?!

I'm about in full blown panic right now.

 

[Y2Kev]

Omfg what happened to the 538 polls?! Wtf?!

I'm about in full blown panic right now.

This is sad.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

Omfg what happened to the 538 polls?! Wtf?!

I'm about in full blown panic right now.

They let literally ONE, yes, ONE poll drop Clinton 7% which is the single most absurd thing I've ever seen a forcaster do.

It was 58.2% Clinton and then they input the Selzer poll (+2 Trump) and it plummeted to 51.5% absolutely ridiculous

 

[RustyNails]

He made it through all of those debates with everyone attacking him, though. Perhaps the contrast wasn't enough and will be exemplified with Clinton, but we'll see.

I mean, did you watch those debates? Do you think taking a shit on Rosie O' Donnell will work tonight? Or talking about the size of his dick? Trump lost all those debates on substance, but since RNC debates are never about substance and more about bashing Obama/Hillary, he came out alright.

 

[Cyanity]

Facts are opinions.

#1984

What the actual f*cking sh*t

edit - (referring to the tweet that didn't end up in the quotes)

 

[GutsOfThor]

Are they? If they were, they would vote for the first female president regardless of whether or not they like her, because it is a huge step forward for women's rights. But they're stuck up and hung up on garbage about how much they dislike her—because their emotions are what should draw the line between "women's rights" and "Hillary Clinton", is it?

We have on this forum guys who will proclaim themselves supporters of feminism, then wonder why there is censorship of their scantily clad loli female characters.

A guy with a rainbow avatar denoting his support for gay marriage and rights, living in the UK, shitting on Hillary Clinton by saying she has no charisma and sounds like a grandma. Said guy is a heavy Jeremy Corbyn supporter, because Jeremy Corbyn is so charismatic.

A guy who is quite into statistics who would sooner praise an old white man for making it to second place in a nationwide primary while claiming the woman actually who won the nationwide primary, the first woman to ever do so, is shit.

A guy who argues heavily against sexist female character designs on gaming side only to adamantly double down on characterizing Hillary Clinton based on how she decided to handle her marriage to Bill.

Yes, I'm sure all these people care a lot about women's rights. They just don't care enough to respect the accomplishments of this woman and what those accomplishments mean for women's rights, because she's Hillary Clinton.

Passionate about women's rights? Which one of them actually talked about women's healthcare as a major issue during the primaries? About equal pay beyond mentioning it as a footnote amidst chatter about inequality and Wall Street? Paid family leave? Violence against women? Did they care about Planned Parenthood when PP endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Millennials sure are all the rage about racial inequality, criminal justice, economic inequality. But the only "women's rights" issue that get covered at length in the media and in social media is when rape is involved. That's how severe it has to be before they care. "Passionate about women's rights"? It's mostly lip service.

Thank you for saying this. Kind of on the same page but there was one poster in the NYT endorsement thread that said that millennials don't hate her because of right ring attacks and I wanted to respond is that why they keep parroting those same right wing attacks every fucking chance they get? I didn't engage because I know it's a losing battle at this point.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

I actually don't agree with this. Trump went largely ignored for most of the primary until South Carolina. In that second to last debate, Rubio and Cruz started name checking each other so they could both go after trump. And they DID get him, on trump university especially. Rubio then sunk himself by going into the gutter.

Trump was low-energy and seemed exhausted by the end of one of the final debates, I forget which. But it was a debate where he was clearly playing defensively to run out the clock. He can't afford to do that at this point.

 

[banefirelord]

Omfg what happened to the 538 polls?! Wtf?!

I'm about in full blown panic right now.

The election isn't today. There are three debates between now and then. 538's model is a bit wonky. Breathe. This too shall pass.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Omfg what happened to the 538 polls?! Wtf?!

I'm about in full blown panic right now.

Good morning. Welcome to Hell.

Ignore 538 right now. It shows a map with Clinton at 270 but still projects Trump wining. We're temporarily writing it off as we slowly load the bullet into the chamber, feeling the heavy weight of the gun in our hand, and setting it aside for later. Just in case.

I mean-- ignore bad Nate right now. Stay calm and remember the debate hasn't even happened yet. The polls are unusually volatile, but we are still winning.

 

[tuffy]

In Wang I Trust

The overall stability of the 2016 race suggests that compared with today, polls are more likely to move back toward their past average than away from it. Think of public opinion as being like a rubber band: the race has some set point, like a thermostat. If opinion gets far from this natural equilibrium, it gets drawn back to that. This kind of dynamic is often called “regression to the mean.” It is a core assumption of the PEC model.

Given that tendency, I will make a prediction that may sound odd: I have no idea how Clinton and Trump will perform in Monday’s debate. But based on the regression-to-the-mean principle, I expect polls to move toward Clinton in the 1-2 weeks after the debate. Of course, if conditions move in the other direction, come on back and mock me!

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Reminder that pretty much the most sexist industry that exists, technology, is dominated and controlled pretty much exclusively by millennials.

Millennials are not really all that into women's rights, despite wanting to believe they are. I'd even guess that younger millennials are more sexist than the generation before them, based on what I've seen.