• 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.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Wilsongt said:
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
Click to expand...

What if they're Asian? Checkmate, Republicans.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
whyamihere said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9e9fac-8352-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html

Well.
Click to expand...
Just finished this whole piece. This is going places. More and more gets dug up, and the many holes are being revealed.
The Post asked about the 2011 gift from Comedy Central. Back then, Trump had bragged on video that he was getting a big appearance fee. “They paid me a lot of money, and they were very generous. And all of that money goes to charity,” Trump said.

After The Post brought up the Comedy Central case during the Saturday interview, Epshteyn conceded that Trump had, indeed, controlled where this money went.

It was his income. And, Epshteyn said, he paid taxes on it.

Could he provide proof of that tax payment?

“Absolutely not,” Epshteyn said.
Click to expand...
Oops.

I like the final bit:
During the interview with Epshteyn on Saturday, The Post asked if the Trump Foundation had self-reported any other violations to the IRS or paid any other penalties.

“That’s not something we’re prepared to comment on,” he said.
Click to expand...
What are the odds that there are more penalties to discover? What are the odds he'll be self-reporting more violations in the future?

BlastProcessing said:
By itself, yes, but the case is slowly forming. Farenthold is building the trap meticulously, bit by bit. It's a really amazing example of good reporting. Good reporting is boring until it's not.
Click to expand...
Word.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
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.
Click to expand...

They often are the same thing. The NYT piece points out that Gore was constantly sighing and rolling his eyes during Paul Begala's W Bush mock performance. Likewise Obama was very annoyed and condescending to Kerry during some of the debate prep in 2012. If the mock is handled properly the candidate treats his or her mock opponent like he or she would treat the real thing. That's what you want in order to diagnose and fix problems early.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
BlastProcessing said:
By itself, yes, but the case is slowly forming. Farenthold is building the trap meticulously, bit by bit. It's a really amazing example of good reporting. Good reporting is boring until it's not.
Click to expand...

Yup I feel like there's a damn about to burst. Its like watergate, small little things that build up to a major story

Its like watching all the presidents men
 
J

Joeytj

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
Yup I feel like there's a damn about to burst. Its like watergate, small little things that build up to a major story

Its like watching all the presidents men
Click to expand...

John Oliver also knocked it out of the park yesterday with his weighing of both Clinton and Trump's scandals. He meticulously deconstructed the case against the "both sides are the same" argument. All through raisins!
 
Head of Vengarl

Head of Vengarl

Banned
Browsing r/All on Reddit and a thread from r/The_Donald pops up:

"Do not use CNN tonight!"

Me: Well yeah CNN is pretty awful.

"Watch it on Fox or Info-Wars instead!"

BirGh2B.gif


Joeytj said:
John Oliver also knocked it out of the park yesterday with his weighing of both Clinton and Trump's scandals. He meticulously deconstructed the case against the "both sides are the same" argument. All through raisins!
Click to expand...

If by "knocked it out of the park" you mean shilled for Hillary, then yeah. He didn't even mention how she bought off the media and rigged the votes!
At least that's what I gathered by reading the YouTube comments.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Crab said:
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.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I should have been clearer. My point is that margin of error gets a lot of focus, but it is not the only source of variance. Different data, different methodologies with that data, these are the reasons that you average polls.

And personally, I criticize pundits and punditry. You aren't going to find much of anything in my post history criticizing statisticians.
 
D

dramatis

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
Are you trying to outdo former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's comments to young women with this level of disrespect? Young women aren't full of themselves because they don't allegedly care or value Hillary Clinton winning a primary.
Click to expand...
Come back and talk about who is disrespecting women when you're not supporting Donald Trump
 
P

PBY

Banned
Luap said:
Browsing r/All on Reddit and a thread from r/The_Donald pops up:

"Do not use CNN tonight!"

Me: Well yeah CNN is pretty awful.

"Watch it on Fox or Info-Wars instead!"

BirGh2B.gif
Click to expand...

This is what I fear when I see people just taking out "the media."

We can't arrive at a place where there are two reality bubbles.
 
B

Brinbe

Member
Tried to watch some CNN to get a feel for coverage. (huge mistake I know)... Then Wolf talked about what Harry Reid said and then had Sean Spicer on and I lasted about two minutes. Fuck cable news so much. Insufferably bad.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
BlastProcessing said:
You misunderstood me. I should have been clearer. My point is that margin of error gets a lot of focus, but it is not the only source of variance. Different data, different methodologies with that data, these are the reasons that you average polls.
Click to expand...

No, I've understood you perfectly. Let me quote the precise part I mean:

different methodologies with that data, these are the reasons that you average polls
Click to expand...

This is wrong. You do not average polls because they use different methodologies. Some methodologies will be more accurate than others because the underlying assumptions are better. Some will be worse because the underlying assumptions are worse. All averaging a good set of assumptions with a bad set of assumptions does is produce a third result which is less accurate than the good set of assumptions. You would have been better off *not averaging* and simply using the good set of assumptions to begin with.

You average samples because it is effectively the same as creating a bigger sample - you know that on the balance of probabilities, you will be more accurate by doing so. Note that this isn't guaranteed; but expected in the strict mathematical sense of the word. There is a statistical proof of this. However, you shouldn't average methodologies - you should apply a single methodology, the one which has the most credibility. This is because there is no reason to suppose that on the balance of probabilities, averaging methodology will improve either the accuracy or the precision of your results compared to any given single methodology.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Valhelm said:
Really wondering if this could be something of an October surprise
Click to expand...

Somebody would actually have to leak his returns, because he'll never do it. There will never be any proof.

I think it's clear why he hasn't done it yet, though. He's just using his foundation as a tax haven and getting away with it. I also wonder how many other celebrities do this.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Data Orbital don't seem to publish their LV screen, unless anyone else can find it?
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
PBY said:
This is what I fear when I see people just taking out "the media."

We can't arrive at a place where there are two reality bubbles.
Click to expand...

This isn't anything new.

The alt-right is really just a bunch of old (sometimes very old) right-wing traditions being appropriated by a traditionally progressive demographic.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
whyamihere said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9e9fac-8352-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html

Well.
Click to expand...

This shit is unbelievable when added to the previous pieces and it highlights the insane double standard at play in the media.

"We can't find any evidence of wrong doing with the Clinton Foundation, but it LOOKS bad!"

"Trump's caught doing two probably illegal actions (not paying tax on income and using charity money to buy person items and pay for personal legal defense), but it's all good because that what business people do all of the time!"
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Even if no one is going after Trump right now because he is a presidential candidate he is so damn screwed if he loses. Everything is going to come crumbling down when people start really investigating. This is not even to mention the Trump U case.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
whyamihere said:
oh.
Click to expand...

This is why I think Johnson is doing more good than harm for the election. He might be taking away a few wayward and thoughtless Bernie voters, but his support base is overwhelmingly made up of moderate conservatives who don't like the idea of voting for a pseudo-fascist. If Johnson stays almost-relevant, he could hand potentially hand some key states to Hillary.

Really hoping Johnson becomes a mirror image of Nader in the 2000 election.
 
P

Paskil

Member
Just completed my ballot for Queen and Russ Feingold, PoliGAF fam. Funnily enough, it will be cast at the polling place at which I work on election day since that is the polling place at which I am assigned as a chief inspector. There was probably no point in voting early since I will probably be the one feeding the ballot into the machine.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Cybit said:
Reminder that the Cavs had a 15% chance to beat Golden State when down 3-1 when using models, but most people would have assumed that it was a 0-5% chance. People are bad at understanding odds at extremes. I mean - what are the odds that Trump does really well at the debate / Clinton does really poorly?
Click to expand...

I really hate comparing sports to politics in this way because there are so many factors that can swing a series or a game in a random moment.

I could go in more detail but Draymond Green's suspension completely altered the series (and Curry's obvious injury played a long term factor). Things like this are black swan events in politics but are fairly routine in the sports world. Suspensions, injuries, etc. Literally, every playoffs has a "Well, but what is X wasn't hurt!?"

Prior to Green's suspension, and if we assume nothing weird happens, I'd have put GSW at 95% to win. Honestly, I can't see how they'd have lost game 5 and 6 without it.



Yeah, PA is done for.

I guess I am accounting for a potential 3 point swing (which is about where the debate swings end up historically IIRC) still upcoming, and I think the 3 pt lead on a national level overstates the electoral lead (since it may be running up the score in states that are already solidly blue). While I am hoping that Clinton will be the beneficiary of that 3 pt swing; can't assume it one way or the other. If there was no debate, then that 3 point lead would be pretty nice.
Click to expand...

But the swing could go either way, as you say, so you can't bake it in one way or another.

That's fine to believe the 3 point lead overstates the electoral lead. I guess I should say my point is that if Hillary is up 3 nationally, that she's 85% to win the popular vote (does not mean 85% to win the electoral vote).

My issue is with the 3 point lead = dead heat argument. It's...frustrating. IMO, anything above 80% to win (in this case the PV) is not a dead heat.

At 538's polls-only, she's up around 1.5. With the MoE probably sub 3%, you're still at around 3:1 odds. Still something I'd have a hard time characterizing as a dead heat.

Of the top 10 polls-only model polls national, Hillary leads 8! Losing the bad USC/LA Times poll and Selzer's latest (which was wrong on Iowa, btw).

Now let's look at every poll with data from Sept 15+

I've found 20. Trump is leading (unadjusted) in exactly 4. Again, the USC garbage polls, Selzer (normally good), Ras (lol I'm always throwing Ras out) and Morning Consult (+1).

Now, we know Ras is a joke and the USC poll is flawed (Cohn showed why).

So 2 of 18 polls show Trump winning. Of those, it's +1 and +2. So if Clinton is leading 5 points, a +2 or +1 for Trump is expected in 18 polls. These polls are confirming Hillary's lead! It's how polling works.

But Nate Silver has put on his pundit hat and today declared a dead heat. At some point, we have to stop defending garbage no matter how great it was in the past.

Ask IWMBT if I defended Kobe's play these last couple seasons. I did not. It doesn't matter how amazing and how much I loved watching him play, he was objectively garbage.

And I'm not complaining about Silver's model right now, just him. It's not a dead heat, yet.
No worries; I tend to be busy during the weekend and end up not responding, but it was an interesting discussion and didn't want to leave it unanswered.
Click to expand...

FTR, if I ever don't respond, and this goes to any poster here, you can always PM me a reminder to respond to a post and I'll get to it. I never try to intentionally ignore someone but life can be busy!

For instance, Thurs-Mon I'll be in Vegas and won't be posting much if at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
235
42K
OverHeat replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
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
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Top Bottom