RastaMentality
Banned
We're probably gonna need a new thread by tomorrow morning right?
-
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
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
Basileus777
Member
Landlines only please.
BlastProcessing
Member
But we have no way of knowing which methodologies are more accurate and I am not confident that one methodology is best all of the time in all of the states. I am going to stand by my original thoughts on this which mirror Nate Cohn's.
You obviously know more about statistics than I do, so if you want a more fruitful discussion on why different LV methodologies are, in fact, a compelling reason to rely on polling averages take it up with Cohn on twitter.
Black Mamba
Member
This may have been posted.
But before anyone listens to the post-debate coverage, read this about the media this year:
http://pressthink.org/2016/09/asymm...s-fries-the-circuits-of-the-mainstream-press/
Best article about it so far.
But before anyone listens to the post-debate coverage, read this about the media this year:
http://pressthink.org/2016/09/asymm...s-fries-the-circuits-of-the-mainstream-press/
Best article about it so far.
Morse code only.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
But this isn't true! We have all sorts of reasons. For example, we have strong reason to suppose landline polls won't produce an accurate sample because there are many eligible voters who don't have a landline.
I might, actually. I think that's a pretty terrible conclusion he's made there. It's the statistician's equivalent of "eh, fuck it, just fudge it a bit and it should turn out okay".
Trump +10
nature boy
Member
CNN treating the debate like it's the Super Bowl.
"We got beer and some chicken wings...."
"We got beer and some chicken wings...."
Oh god noooooooooo
jack_package_200
Banned
Refresh my memory, what was the polling like back then?
BlastProcessing
Member
StopMakingSense
Member
You motherfucker.
Basileus777
Member
I love all the hoping that Big Bird will turn things around.
nature boy
Member
Clinton to the right of the screen.
Black Mamba
Member
You're right, FWIW. But...excluding the obvious, I think his point is that we don't know which voter turnout model is right and so we just have to average those (though I believe things like house effect should be included too).
Also 53Nate wrote something:
Silver again not understanding how this works...
Also, I think this is a big problem here:
the model assumes uncertainty is better for the underdog...and while this might normally be true, this election is probably weird.
UGGGHHHH..he just earlier said PEC would be quicker since it's already assuming this revision.
whyamihere
Banned
I love how we ended up getting a good day of polling for Hillary after that Selzer disaster.
I was working on a medium-effort post in the Gary Johnson thread, but it was closed. So I think I'll drop it here.
Protest voting is harmful, but we shouldn't think of these folks as a bunch of edgy deplorables who want to cause disarray. Young Johnson and Stein voters, as well as many millennials who went for Bernie, are people who are aware that our society is burdened by a host of new and old problems, but are too poorly-informed to know how these problems should be solved.
A really common attitude is "all politicians are bad". This kind of simplistic thinking isn't limited to millennials, but you see it all the time on Gaf, on Reddit, or in the classroom. I used to work with a 24-year-old political teetotaler who sincerely thought that American politics were so corrupt that a vote would always be meaningless. Just being a politician was enough of a stain.
I think that because political awareness and historical understanding is so poor, most Americans -- particularly the young -- can't verbalize their frustrations, let alone how these problems have been solved. The main reason why I supported Bernie Sanders was not because I thought his policies would be revolutionary, but because he was a real step in the right direction. By starting the discussion on problems most candidates don't want to acknowledge, Bernie helped young Americans understand why they can't afford a degree, a wedding, or even their own apartment. He offered some real solutions to their problems, even if free college and single-payer healthcare might not be possible in our current climate.
The burden to help young people understand and ultimately solve brewing economic problems rests on the shoulders of millennial politicians. Just like Barry Goldwater fermented the far-right path that Reagan-era politicians would drag this country down, I think Bernie Sanders will leave a small, important mark on America's ideological history, and be remembered as the person who taught our generation that we don't need to rely on the whims of the private sector when hard times roll around.
Protest voting is harmful, but we shouldn't think of these folks as a bunch of edgy deplorables who want to cause disarray. Young Johnson and Stein voters, as well as many millennials who went for Bernie, are people who are aware that our society is burdened by a host of new and old problems, but are too poorly-informed to know how these problems should be solved.
A really common attitude is "all politicians are bad". This kind of simplistic thinking isn't limited to millennials, but you see it all the time on Gaf, on Reddit, or in the classroom. I used to work with a 24-year-old political teetotaler who sincerely thought that American politics were so corrupt that a vote would always be meaningless. Just being a politician was enough of a stain.
I think that because political awareness and historical understanding is so poor, most Americans -- particularly the young -- can't verbalize their frustrations, let alone how these problems have been solved. The main reason why I supported Bernie Sanders was not because I thought his policies would be revolutionary, but because he was a real step in the right direction. By starting the discussion on problems most candidates don't want to acknowledge, Bernie helped young Americans understand why they can't afford a degree, a wedding, or even their own apartment. He offered some real solutions to their problems, even if free college and single-payer healthcare might not be possible in our current climate.
The burden to help young people understand and ultimately solve brewing economic problems rests on the shoulders of millennial politicians. Just like Barry Goldwater fermented the far-right path that Reagan-era politicians would drag this country down, I think Bernie Sanders will leave a small, important mark on America's ideological history, and be remembered as the person who taught our generation that we don't need to rely on the whims of the private sector when hard times roll around.
BlastProcessing
Member
Of course landline only is a bad methodology. Cohn's point was that within the band of reasonable assumptions, there is still a ton of variance. We know what's good and what's bad, but we don't know what's best. I would love to see a conversation between you and him about it. I'm sure I would learn something.
I love how every time Silver screams about a dead heat, the polling slaps him in the face.
Basileus777
Member
Whenever he starts getting super aggressive it's usually because he's backed himself into a corner and unwilling to ease up. His worst punditry seems to come from being overly defensive and prideful.
To quote Wang: Reversion to the mean!
Because she doesn't know for sure and she's used to campaigns making sense. Most anchors don't have sufficient facts ready to contradict so many lies, so they just stay quiet. The Trump campaign knows this.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Subdued trump only shows up when teleprompters are there.
There is none
--
Truned on msnbs and saw
"Trump: moderator should not fact check me"
Seriously?
Officerrob
Banned
Chuck Todd says some of the polls today look like they were designed to be headline generators
I also love that his article specifically points to Silver's tweets as punditry.
Not as brutal as the PredictWise article, but still. The shade.
When this thread hits 88 posts per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit
Oh, now he gets it...
AntraxSuicide
Banned
This example is the equivalent of staking a moral claim in an argument on an extreme example. Arguments get harder with shades of grey.
In this case, it's less about methodologies that most would agree are bad, and more about controversial methods (i.e. methods that have a fair amount of both supporters and detractors). In these instances, instead of statisticians bickering over these technical issues, you average them together and do better than a coin flip.
In your previous example, for instance, where you had polls showing Trump +1, Clinton +1, Clinton +5, the assumption from you was that the Trump +1 poll was correct, so we shouldn't average these results, but take that poll. But what's your argument for doing so? It's obvious is the others were clearly bad (maybe landline only or something), but that isn't very interesting.
It's more accurate to average them and get Clinton +2 than it is to just guess which of the three is correct. A person guessing may pick the Clinton +5 poll, and that would be worse. (Obviously you aren't truly guessing but picking a method to stick with, but if it's not very clear which is best, you aren't going to have many readers interested in your vague defenses of the model. This is in fact my current frustration with Silver! I don't particularly know whether his model right now is correct or not, and won't until the election if ever, but his reasoning for why he does what he does is really poor.)
I stand by my statement before that Silver was probably great in calculation courses, but his arguments for things are lacking badly. Looking back, I was biased to this before when the results were in my favor (like, I was scared of Trump, so I didn't actually want him to win, so I liked Silver's model), but he was doing it then too (as he eventually admitted).
Aaron Strife
Banned
Thor +2
the dark world
And yet, they've prepared for it.
nature boy
Member
No way!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Most Socialists are too eager to say "everything Trump has been accusing of doing wrt destroying U.S. norms, W already did!" but the media probably should look more at how post-truth politics came from Newt Gingrich and W post-9/11.
Steve King is such a doofus.
https://mobile.twitter.com/scottbix/status/780538936573779968/photo/1
I also don't see how he gets away with basically being David Duke at this point. The only thing missing is proof he's been a klan member.
https://mobile.twitter.com/scottbix/status/780538936573779968/photo/1
I also don't see how he gets away with basically being David Duke at this point. The only thing missing is proof he's been a klan member.
Depressing considering what we have seen so far.
metalslimer
Member
You know I just realized that usually even if you have democratic and republican pundits on, one side will usually at the very least admit their candidate didn't do as well of job as they liked on a certain issue or two. There is no way any of the Trump people will will be willing to move an inch even if Trump bombs catastrophically.
She's going to attack Trump from the right? Is that a good idea?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
But why should we average them? Do we have any statistical reason to suppose that averaging them gives us a more accurate result? No. We don't know which voter turnout model is right, I agree. But that doesn't mean we should therefore create an entirely new voter turnout model by averaging the all the other voter turnout models. Rather, we should either present the one we find most credible, or present multiple models having eliminated all those we find incredible. At least then, we can compare the different models to the final turnout, and find out whether our credibility was well-founded or not, rather than having one smushy model that makes examining whether individual assumptions worked or not very difficult.
Nate sort of does this. This is what the adjusted leader business is. He has examined how different methodologies fared in prior elections, tried to correct results produced by these methodologies accordingly to produce results that are tantamount to being produced by the same methodology, and then averaged those. But people have spent the last few pages attacking this. Baffling.
Everything will be the media's fault. Sad!
Black Mamba
Member
Well, I'll be posting here instead of the Debate thread. That thread will just be going way too fast for me.
Between twitter and my fantasy football scoring updates, gonna be too hard to manage two threads and so I'll stay here!
See y'all just before the debate!
Between twitter and my fantasy football scoring updates, gonna be too hard to manage two threads and so I'll stay here!
See y'all just before the debate!
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Good point, it's all the Republicans did in the debates and we know how that turned out.
Don't worry we'll make sure this thread goes waaay too fast as well. Sorry Mamba
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked