• 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.
Help a dumbdumb out. What's this mean?

Think of the chart like a hurricane projection path. Meta margin is a metric Wang uses:

The Wang said:
The Popular Meta-Margin works like the more familiar margin between two candidates. It is defined the amount of opinion swing that is needed to bring the Median Electoral Vote Estimator to a tie. It helps you think about how far ahead one candidate really is. For example, if you think support for your candidate is understated by 1%, this can overcome an unfavorable Meta-Margin of less than 1%. If you think that between now and Election Day, 1% of voters will switch from the other candidate to yours, this is a swing of 2% and can compensate for a Meta-Margin of 2%. The Meta-Margin has a useful precision of approximately a tenth of a percentage point.

Holy shit, this song / video were tailor made to this election, and its from 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV4oYkIeGJc

The original video is also relevant (and in my old-ass opinion, better)

If these 2 are the best pollsters, how does one reconcile the different result? Methodology? Turnout?

Or it could just be regular sampling error.

Not just sampling error. There are other ways that polls can have variance. The Upshot gave 4 different polsters the same sample data and they all came to different conclusions.

kO9RXyP.png


All are good pollsters and all used defensible likely voter models. The results were everywhere between Trump +1 and Clinton +4. Thats a huge variance from the same data.

It's why we should always average polls.
 
New Hampshire is culturally on a different planet than Maine.

Maine is the fucking untamed wilderness. The only reason it's blue is that most of the state is so sparsely populated that the tiny handful of "cities" overwhelm the rest.

We've talked about this before, but to clear something up here, Maine is divided culturally at the Portland line. We are like two completely different states. A few years ago, some wackos in Northern Maine were proposing we cut the state up into two halves: "Maine" and "Northern Massachusetts."

Southern Maine, in spite of its demographics, is very liberal. Like, the busiest exit in Maine is at mile 7, the town of York, and when you come off the exit you are greeted by a beautiful campus belonging to a specialty food company proudly founded by two gay men in 1991. You don't get any more liberal than gay jams and jellies.

Source: I live in Southern Maine.
 
Think of the chart like a hurricane projection path. Meta margin is a metric Wang uses:





The original video is also relevant (and in my old-ass opinion, better)





Not just sampling error. There are other ways that polls can have variance. The Upshot gave 4 different polsters the same sample data and they all came to different conclusions.

kO9RXyP.png


All are good pollsters and all used defensible likely voter models. The results were everywhere between Trump +1 and Clinton +4. Thats a huge variance from the same data.

It's why we should always average polls.

I noticed an updated in the EV, she's back over 300 again
 
Boring Trump is a big risk for his campaign.

People don't want boring Trump. Boring Trump versus Hillary means Hillary wins, because, Boring Trump is as close to conventional politician as you can get. But without any policy knowledge to back it up. But, I don't think he can pull it off.

if he's going to trying boring mode, Hillary can easily get under his skin and make him incoherently ramble which will lead to her prodding him even more etc

i hope
 
I really think y'all are overplaying the "narrative" aspect of this debate, that somehow the media will decide how it's perceived.

One way or another, perception will be decided immediately, as it happens.

No one is going to watch the debate, think "Ugh, this guy fucking sucks and knows nothing and is an empty boring shell" then see Mika say "Wow, he did better than I expected" and then go "Oh, hm, I guess I was wrong"

Come on, seriously.
 
if he's going to trying boring mode, Hillary can easily get under his skin and make him incoherently ramble which will lead to her prodding him even more etc

i hope
She doesn't have to. Boring Trump will be buried by Hillary who will whip him with her knowledge and answers.
 
I really think y'all are overplaying the "narrative" aspect of this debate, that somehow the media will decide how it's perceived.

One way or another, perception will be decided immediately, as it happens.

No one is going to watch the debate, think "Ugh, this guy fucking sucks and knows nothing and is an empty boring shell" then see Mika say "Wow, he did better than I expected" and then go "Oh, hm, I guess I was wrong"

Come on, seriously.

I also agree with this as well.
 
Trump without a teleprompter cannot be boring- he'll just revert to word salad and one liners that will fall flat. I imagine he'll try to play the crowd and it's going to be awkward when he doesn't get a response.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
@ChuckTingle is live tweeting the debate.

Any other good twitter people to follow?
 

Boke1879

Member
Boring Trump is a risk in the fact that his best asset is gone. That being his charisma. Again with follow up questions regarding actual policy I doubt he knows much. This is a long debate in which Trump will have to speak for long periods of time.

Hillary just needs to play her game speak with knowledge etc. You can't really do much else if he's going to be calm.
 
Twitter has radically altered how these things work. Media doesn't set the tone anymore, the instant call-and-response game online does. If Trump disgusts people on social media, that'll be the narrative, regardless of what cable news wants it to be.
 
It'll be interesting to read about Clinton's debate game plan tomorrow and later this week. Trump poses a unique problem in the sense that he is as unpredictable as he is predictable, and he is completely unprepared/uninformed. Unpredictable in the sense that you don't know what type of bomb he might throw, predictable in terms of his general speaking pattern ("x is a mess, Obama and Hillary have been a disaster there. I'm going to fix it so fast, I'm gonna lead, etc"). How Hillary manages encounters with someone this inept without displaying contempt or being condescending will be important. At the same time I still think some level of passive aggressiveness would work really well since it will send Trump over the edge.

The NYT did a big piece on the Bush Gore debate recently, which Bush won in part due to Gore's condescending demeanor. While it's an interesting comparison and Gore and Clinton are similar candidates...W Bush and Trump couldn't be more different. W Bush was a good politician. He wasn't the smartest guy...but he wasn't as dumb as advertised either. More importantly he was a believable "regular guy" candidate that appealed to women. Trump is NOT that. He has zero knowledge on anything outside of real estate and avoiding taxes.

Having contempt for the other candidate never works. Obama really, really didn't like Romney and it showed in his debate prep. He didn't take it as seriously as he should have, and Kerry man handled him during many of the mock debates. And then the first debate happened and you know how that went. On the flip side, McCain had/has contempt for Obama and it was very clearing during the 08 debates. Whereas Obama fixed his fuck up in following debates, McCain was too stubborn and never changed.
 
Donald Trump is only allowed the small articulate mouse that lives in his hair. It whispers dark things to him - things only he can hear. The mouse makes him afraid. He must do as it instructs. It wants blood. When Hell is full the dead will walk.

Damn, that Ratatouille sequel is pretty fucked up.
 

Sianos

Member
Donald Trump is only allowed the small articulate mouse that lives in his hair. It whispers dark things to him - things only he can hear. The mouse makes him afraid. He must do as it instructs. It wants blood. When Hell is full the dead will walk.
If you wrote a book, I would absolutely buy it. You have quite the talent with writing!
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I really think y'all are overplaying the "narrative" aspect of this debate, that somehow the media will decide how it's perceived.

One way or another, perception will be decided immediately, as it happens.

No one is going to watch the debate, think "Ugh, this guy fucking sucks and knows nothing and is an empty boring shell" then see Mika say "Wow, he did better than I expected" and then go "Oh, hm, I guess I was wrong"

Come on, seriously.

I agree with this and I think people have spent so much time talking about bar position that the media is aware of the talk about the media.
 
It'll be interesting to read about Clinton's debate game plan tomorrow and later this week. Trump poses a unique problem in the sense that he is as unpredictable as he is predictable, and he is completely unprepared/uninformed. Unpredictable in the sense that you don't know what type of bomb he might throw, predictable in terms of his general speaking pattern ("x is a mess, Obama and Hillary have been a disaster there. I'm going to fix it so fast, I'm gonna lead, etc"). How Hillary manages encounters with someone this inept without displaying contempt or being condescending will be important. At the same time I still think some level of passive aggressiveness would work really well since it will send Trump over the edge.

The NYT did a big piece on the Bush Gore debate recently, which Bush won in part due to Gore's condescending demeanor. While it's an interesting comparison and Gore and Clinton are similar candidates...W Bush and Trump couldn't be more different. W Bush was a good politician. He wasn't the smartest guy...but he wasn't as dumb as advertised either. More importantly he was a believable "regular guy" candidate that appealed to women. Trump is NOT that. He has zero knowledge on anything outside of real estate and avoiding taxes.

Having contempt for the other candidate never works. Obama really, really didn't like Romney and it showed in his debate prep. He didn't take it as seriously as he should have, and Kerry man handled him during many of the mock debates. And then the first debate happened and you know how that went. On the flip side, McCain had/has contempt for Obama and it was very clearing during the 08 debates. Whereas Obama fixed his fuck up in following debates, McCain was too stubborn and never changed.

I feel like you're conflating contempt for the opponent on stage and contempt for the opponent during prep. You should always take the other guy 100% seriously and prepare for them as best as possible, but done properly, contempt on stage can be a winner. See: Biden v. Ryan.
 
I can't miss Twitter tonight for stuff like

"Trump just said _______________. Live. In front of 100 million Americans."

I know I'll be watching it, and will instinctively know that, but I like seeing shit like that.
 
One thing I'm always really curious about the "bedwetter" types is what they think Obama is going to do for her image when he's on the campaign trail. Surely, Trump has expended his potential growth, and with Obama being as well-liked as he is, it's hard to imagine that he will do anything other than boost her. She would need a legendary scandal to manage to have a net negative after his campaigning, right?
 

Boke1879

Member
One thing I'm always really curious about the "bedwetter" types is what they think Obama is going to do for her image when he's on the campaign trail. Surely, Trump has expended his potential growth, and with Obama being as well-liked as he is, it's hard to imagine that he will do anything other than boost her. She would need a legendary scandal to manage to have a net negative after his campaigning, right?

Yea he can only help in that regard. I think they said he'll be campaigning for her twice a week every week in October.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
No I think the narrative deniers are wrong and vastly overestimate the intelligence of a country where Trump gets more than 5%.

Don't give me that shit about people watching debates _on purpose_ and also not being swayed by someone like Mika.
 

PBY

Banned
VICELAND
‏@VICELAND VICELAND
For #debatenight @desusnice and @THEKIDMERO are taking over our Twitter feed. You can tell who is who from the CAPS LOCK. See you tonight.

This is going to be fantastic.

Follow this for fuckery and not facts. But fantastic fuckery.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9e9fac-8352-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html

Well.

Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has received approximately $2.3 million from companies that owed money to Trump or one of his businesses but were instructed to pay Trump’s tax-exempt foundation instead, according to people familiar with the transactions.

In cases where he diverted his own income to his foundation, tax experts said, Trump would still likely be required to pay taxes on the income. Trump has refused to release his personal tax returns. His campaign said he paid income tax on one of the donations, but did not respond to questions about the others.

That gift was a $400,000 payment from Comedy Central, which owed Trump an appearance fee for his 2011 “roast.”

Then there were payments totaling nearly $1.9 million from a man in New York City who sells sought-after tickets and one-of-a-kind experiences to wealthy clients.

That man, Richard Ebers, bought goods and services — including tickets — from Trump or his businesses, according to two people familiar with the transactions, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the payments. They said that Ebers was instructed to pay the Donald J. Trump Foundation instead. Ebers did not respond to requests for comment.

The Post later presented Epshteyn with the Comedy Central and Ebers examples during the same interview. Epshteyn acknowledged the Comedy Central case had occurred but refused to comment on the others.

“To my knowledge, Mr. Trump has followed all applicable rules and regulations,” Epshteyn wrote in an email Sunday after being presented with The Post’s reporting on the donations from Ebers. “The rest is pure speculation and worthless conjecture on your part.”

“This is so bizarre, this laundry list of issues,” said Marc Owens, the longtime head of the Internal Revenue Service office that oversees nonprofit organizations who is now in private practice. “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years in the IRS, and 40 years total.”

The laws governing the diversion of income into a foundation were written, in part, to stop charity leaders from funneling income that should be taxed into a charity and then using that money to benefit themselves. Such violations can bring monetary penalties, the loss of tax-exempt status, and even criminal charges in extreme cases.

Epshteyn, in the Saturday interview with The Post, said Trump did not knowingly violate any tax laws. “There’s been no intent, in any way, to go against any applicable rules, laws, and regulations,” Ephsteyn said. “If you suggest it any way otherwise, publicly, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.”

In an interview over the weekend, Trump offered a defense of his charity.

“Are you confident that the Trump Foundation has followed all charitable rules and laws?” journalist Sharyl Attkisson asked on a Sunday TV program called Full Measure.

“Well, I hope so,” Trump said. “I mean, my lawyers do it.”

The Trump Foundation has no paid staff. The last time it reported spending any money on legal fees was in 2010, when it spent $53 total for the year.

So far, questions about the Trump Foundation have focused on how the charity spent its money. How the charity raised money — especially after Trump stopped giving — was less understood.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
All are good pollsters and all used defensible likely voter models. The results were everywhere between Trump +1 and Clinton +4. Thats a huge variance from the same data.

It's why we should always average polls.

What? No. That's not why we average polls at all. If all pollsters used the same sample, but used different LV screening techniques, then averaging their results just produces junk. You're essentially just saying "the correct LV screen is to take five other LV screens and average them", which isn't a coherent way of producing an LV screen at all - why should it be true? The +1 Trump result will be the right one if the assumptions that go into the LV screen for that result are correct, even though it's further away from the average than say the Clinton +2 one. Instead of using the average of these, you should use the results with the best LV assumptions.

We average polls because if you have two samples of differing sizes from the same distribution, the best linear unbiased estimation of the population mean is the weighted average of the sample means. Normally polls are different samples because we don't do what the NYT did and give the same sample to different pollsters; instead every pollster produces their own variant sample, and so we can create what is effectively a really big sample (and therefore one within a much smaller margin of error) by averaging them. The actual best practice is to apply the same LV screen (the correct one, or at least the one we have the most reason to suppose is correct) to all datasets, and average that. This is exactly what Nate does with Adjusted Leaders, and is much better practice than a straight up polling average.

There's a heck of a lot of criticizing statisticians in here by people who don't always seem to be on top of their statistics.
 

Retro

Member
“There’s been no intent, in any way, to go against any applicable rules, laws, and regulations,” Ephsteyn said. “If you suggest it any way otherwise, publicly, it’s dangerous and irresponsible.”

Hey, Mr. Senior Trump Advisor, let's not talk about saying shit publicly that's dangerous and irresponsible. Remember who the fuck you work for.
 
This is super shady, but a nothingburger.

Unless he can prove he paid income tax for these 'donations,' it's pretty clear that Trump is using his foundation as tax-free petty* cash:

• Trump has asked people to pay money to the foundation instead of to him.
• Trump has then controlled how this money is spent.
• With that control, he's instructed the foundation to spend money in ways that benefit him personally.

*petty relative to his 'wealth.'
 
I love watching Trump advisors complain that people aren't assuming good faith that a man who refuses to release his tax returns doesn't have something to hide financially
 

Wilsongt

Member
Based on the race of the mass shooter, you can practically pinpoint the right's description:

Hispanic -- dangerous illegal immigrant
White -- must be mental illness
Black -- blm terrorist
Middle eastern -- isis fighter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom