Support NeoGAF

[Grief.exe]

Not saying he is Hitler or that they think he's Hitler.

Just that he looks more similar to Hitler the less religion and more college you have.

He does draw many similarities to how Hitler gained power.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

What's disturbing to me are the Trump supporters who aren't bigoted at all (as far as I know) but are super friendly and unassuming. I can only assume it's for tax reasons or such. Even then, bad look and I don't have much respect for them. Just some thoughts I've been having.

You are describing my father.

I have been grappling very seriously with whether or not I still "love" my father in light of what I will gently refer to as his "politics."

We have never had the best relationship, but I am inclined to believe that I simply do not.

This election has been hard. On the best days, I pity him. On the others... hmm...

 

[Dierce]

Atheists going hard for a fairly devout Methodist; evangelicals wedding themselves to a godless amoralist.

This is true, as an atheist I know that Clinton is the only true Christian of the two. Orange turd only regards himself and money as god while pretending to be a christian to fool idiots who probably realize they are being conned but don't care.

 

[Black Mamba]

Maybe the USC-LA poll is the only true unskewed poll out there and all of the others are wrong.

I'm not talking about the actual numbers, I'm talking about the volatility. It's pretty nuts.

 

[Manmademan]

Why is Hillary trailing behind Obama 2012 so much in Ohio while doing a good bit better in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania is more educated than Ohio is by quite a bit.

 

[User1608]

You are describing my father.

I have been grappling very seriously with whether or not I still "love" my father in light of what I will gently refer to as his "politics."

We have never had the best relationship, but I am inclined to believe that I simply do not.

This election has been hard.

Yes, my view of my acquaintances and friends has changed drastically when I found out through talking. All I can I do I nod along especially in a work environment, aside from a few instances where I had to speak up! It is profoundly hurtful because Trump started off his campaign by dehumanizing immigrants, so there's that. Then there's the other racist stuff. I've tried to not have as a black and white view of things as I have been the last 24 hours but it's pretty difficult you know?

The great thing is my understanding of the world has broadened as a result of this cycle, and whether Hillary wins or loses, I like to think I'm going to be better off for it.

This is true, as an atheist I know that Clinton is the only true Christian of the two. Orange turd only regards himself and money as god while pretending to be a christian to fool idiots who probably realize they are being conned but don't care.

Gotta love how these Christians are drawn to Trump's hate.

 

[Black Mamba]

Weight is based on three things - Pollster Ratings (which were set middle of the year based on previous performance), sample size, and how recent the questions were asked (not the date the poll was released, but over what days they did the polling).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

Seriously, the entire explanation of the model is there and has been for months. It's kind of funny watching folks bash the model and reveal that they never bothered to read the handy dandy primer put out that actually explains it in pretty significant detail.

I've read it and this is what he's getting at.

It says it adjusts polls based on FIVE things.

There are five adjustments, listed here in the order in which the model applies them. (The trend line and house effects adjustments are generally the most important ones.)

Likely voter adjustment
Convention bounce adjustment (in only the polls-plus model)
Omitted third-party candidate adjustment
Trend line adjustment
House effects adjustment​

Now, you're right in terms of how they weigh the polls. They weight them on ratings, recency, and sample size.

But that poster was clearly being annoyed by the poll adjustments rather than the weights in the model.

 

[Cybit]

I've read it and this is what he's getting at.

It says it adjusts polls based on FIVE things.



Now, you're right in terms of how they weigh the polls. They weight them on ratings, recency, and sample size.

But that poster was clearly being annoyed by the poll adjustments rather than the weights in the model.

There was nothing about poll adjustments in that statement.

Also, the "trend line adjustment" makes a ton of sense when you read the reasoning behind it

Trend line adjustment

The model detects movement in the polls by making comparisons between different editions of the same poll. For example, if Clinton is at 46 percent in the Quinnipiac poll of Florida in August and was at 43 percent in the same poll in July, that suggests she’s gained 3 percentage points. Likewise, if Trump’s at 41 percent in the Rasmussen national poll this week and he was at 40 percent last week, that suggests he’s gained 1 percentage point.

The model runs this calculation for Clinton, Trump and Johnson separately. It’s possible for all candidates to gain (or lose) votes from undecided.

By making an apples-to-apples comparison, this method removes a lot of noise.

Next, the model takes these comparisons and draws a trend line from them using loess regression.

Polls are adjusted based on this regression. For instance, if Trump led in a North Carolina poll by 1 percentage point in June, but the trend line shows him having gained 3 percentage points nationally since then, the model will treat the poll as showing him up by 4 percentage points. This calculation varies slightly from state to state based on a state’s elasticity score. More about this later.

The question is how much smoothing to use in the trend line. Less smoothing = a more aggressive forecast.

Empirically, using more smoothing early in the race and less smoothing late in the race works best. In other words, the trend line starts out being quite conservative and becomes more aggressive as Election Day approaches.

 

[Joeytj]

Ok, so.

The election can basically have three outcomes:

1. Hillary wins by a narrow margin
2. Trump wins by a narrow margin
3. Hillary wins in a landslide

Am I correct?

 

[Iolo]

Ok, so.

The election can basically have three outcomes:

1. Hillary wins by a narrow margin
2. Trump wins by a narrow margin
3. Hillary wins in a landslide

Am I correct?

269-269 tie, Johnson elected by House

 

[Cyanity]

Did you have any coke or drugs on a similar level to it in the car? Hope you end up okay :/

Thanks for the sentiment. Nothing drug related on me thank god, but I did get a court date for reckless driving after doing the ol' pull up close then back off to try and get someone to move over. This is in NH too, two and a half hours from where I live x.x


edit - and my brother wonders why I refuse to carry drugs in my vehicle

 

[BlastProcessing]

The dumber you are the dumber you vote.

Or rather, the less educated you are about the world, the more likely you are to vote for people who actively skew the way the world works. Mr Preacherman has a lot of sway.

College Education isn't just a marker of intelligence. It is a huge marker for financial stability and social class. People who grew up in wealthy households are more likely to attend college. The opportunity to attend college is not equal amongst the populace.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people look at numbers like these and call people dumb.

 

[Cybit]

Ok, so.

The election can basically have three outcomes:

1. Hillary wins by a narrow margin
2. Trump wins by a narrow margin
3. Hillary wins in a landslide

Am I correct?

Functionally yes (since Clinton PV / Trump EV win is covered by the second)

 

[Ondore]

269-269 tie, Johnson elected by House

I think the House can only pick from candidates who win an electoral vote.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't see why Obama vetoed when he knows it will be overrided.

 

[Cyanity]

I don't see why Obama vetoed when he knows it will be overrided.

Probably to try and show Saudi Arabia that the US is still their ally

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't see why Obama vetoed when he knows it will be overrided.

Its the right thing to do. The bill is a mess.

 

[thebloo]

This is true, as an atheist I know that Clinton is the only true Christian of the two. Orange turd only regards himself and money as god while pretending to be a christian to fool idiots who probably realize they are being conned but don't care.

I think a lot of atheists (the mature ones) don't mind Christians as long as that is not their defining trait. Love, compassion are things from the Bible, but not only.

So, a roundabout way of saying that we just don't like "crazy Christians".

 

[Black Mamba]

There was nothing about poll adjustments in that statement.

Also, the "trend line adjustment" makes a ton of sense when you read the reasoning behind it

I know he didn't mention it but that's what he was thinking about.


And while you're right that a trend line adjustment may make sense, there's two problems with the way Silver does it.

1. Through a Loess Regression, which is waaaay too aggressive for what he's doing.

2. He does the trend line among the same pollster, not among all the pollsters combined. This is BAD MATH. Like, comically bad math. The kind your econometrics professor would fail you for doing. You, cannot set up your trend line data this way. This is why his model is being so wacky.

This is why I keep saying he doesn't "understand" statistics. He's making a simple but fatal mistake in the setup of the model because he know how to use math but not how to apply it, here.

edit: I'd also like to state his reasoning demonstrate really bad fucking math.

For example, if Clinton is at 46 percent in the Quinnipiac poll of Florida in August and was at 43 percent in the same poll in July, that suggests she’s gained 3 percentage points.

This is wrong. Very very veeeerrrryyy wrong.

 

[Iolo]

OCT 1, 2012 AT 10:51 PM

New Polls Raise Chance of Electoral College Tie

By

Spoiler

Nate Silver

.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

The hot takes

https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/779415700288991233

Thwip Thwip

 

[whyamihere]

NBC/SurveyMonkey decided to #AskTheGays

In 2012, Obama won 76% of the LGB vote, Romney 26%.

 

[mo60]

Ok, so.

The election can basically have three outcomes:

1. Hillary wins by a narrow margin
2. Trump wins by a narrow margin
3. Hillary wins in a landslide

Am I correct?

There's a fourth outcome which is hilary wins by a considerable margin but not a landslide.

 

[Cyanity]

I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the fact that Nate Silver doesn't want to get full bodied like he did back during the primaries. He's treating trump like the dangerous orange gorilla-weilding-a-hand-grenade he is.

 

[Officerrob]

I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the fact that Nate Silver doesn't want to get full bodied like he did back during the primaries. He's treating trump like the dangerous orange gorilla-weilding-a-hand-grenade he is.

He needs to drop the pundit shit and stick to the numbers

 

[Joeytj]

There's a fourth outcome which is hilary wins by a considerable margin but not a landslide.

Yeah, that's true, although for some reason, I can't quite imagine her winning "only" between 300 and 365, mostly because it seems like that, if she manages to win by 6-7%, Georgia and Arizona look within reach and that might push her above Obama's 2008 win.

 

[Cyanity]

He needs to drop the pundit shit and stick to the numbers

it true

 

[Piecake]

A House Judiciary Committee hearing on abortion Friday morning took a bizarre turn when, while discussing women of color who have abortions, Republican Congress members brought up the subjects of slavery, black genocide, and a litter of puppies.

And the response from Kierra Johnson, executive director of URGE (Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity), a black woman and the panel’s only pro-choice witness, made clear how offensive many women of color might find those remarks to be.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) first asked Genevieve Plaster, a witness from the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute, to confirm that a disproportionate percentage of abortions in the United States have been performed on black women (or “committed” on “black babies,” as King put it). King asked why the black community doesn’t consider that “genocide.” Plaster said that some black pro-life organizations do.

Then King turned to Johnson and asked, without preamble: “If one were to be there at the delivery of a litter of puppies, and as a puppy was partially delivered, took a device and either crushed the skull or sucked the brains out of that baby puppy, would you be committing a crime in most states?”

Later, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) invoked the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision to suggest — as many Republicans and conservatives often do — that abortion is like slavery because women treat fetuses like “property.”

Johnson’s response to that idea, which again sparked applause from the room, was: “It’s interesting that we’re bringing up slavery in this space. When you own somebody’s decision-making, you own them.”

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/...-abortion-puppies-genocide-slavery-steve-king

stay winning GOP

 

[whyamihere]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clintons-appearance-between-two-932233

More on Between Two Ferns:

Hillary Clinton's appearance on Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis is a bona fide hit.

The video, in which Clinton withstands a series of awkward and often insulting questions from Galifianakis' wacky talk show host, broke Funny or Die records after it appeared online on Sept. 22. The video was viewed more than 30 million times in its first 24 hours, the highest first-day viewership in Funny or Die history.

 

[User 463088]

NBC/SurveyMonkey decided to #AskTheGays

In 2012, Obama won 76% of the LGB vote, Romney 26%.

YASSSSSSS QUEEN

 

[Geg]

Why is it always King and Gohmert

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Why is it always King and Gohmert

In Gohmerts case it's because his mother and father were cousins.

 

[User 85168]

The dumber you are the dumber you vote.

Or rather, the less educated you are about the world, the more likely you are to vote for people who actively skew the way the world works. Mr Preacherman has a lot of sway.

This reads to me you're calling church-goers dumb. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can we not say stuff like this in here?

 

[User 463088]

So, Hillary will go into the debate purse first, yes?

 

[royalan]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-clintons-appearance-between-two-932233

More on Between Two Ferns:

I wonder if this will affect campaign strategy going forward. Hillary and Co couldn't have expected suck widespread positive reception

 

[Joeytj]

This reads to me you're calling church-goers dumb. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can we not say stuff like this in here?

You're right, we shouldn't say those kind of things.

But, that graph...

 

[Joeytj]

I wonder if this will affect campaign strategy going forward. Hillary and Co couldn't have expected suck widespread positive reception

I'm cautiously optimistic... I noticed a stark change in a lot of my pro-Bernie friend's post after this.

It's like, they truly thought Hillary was a reptilian robot.

LMAO I'm just now reading the youtube comments on Hill's Between Two Ferns, and they're all like "This is amazing she looks so awful!! OMG She's so pissed this is a disaster!!! I bet Zach "commits suicide" next week after tanking Hillary even further!!"

How are they this stupid.

That also probably goes a way in explaining it being mostly upvoted as opposed to other Hillary videos lololol

Yes, this is another reason. The first thing I saw on my Facebook feed yesterday was the Buzzfeed headline "HIllary regrets going on Between Two Ferns", which was a joke and the point of the interview, but a lot of anti-Hillary people thought Hillary actually meant that, haha.

 

[Cyanity]

if Hillary can learn to lighten up and do more self deprecating stuff like the Between Two Ferns interview, I can see her winning over a good chunk of undecideds who don't trust her or whatever.

 

[Maengun1]

LMAO I'm just now reading the youtube comments on Hill's Between Two Ferns, and they're all like "This is amazing she looks so awful!! OMG She's so pissed this is a disaster!!! I bet Zach "commits suicide" next week after tanking Hillary even further!!"

How are they this stupid.

That also probably goes a way in explaining it being mostly upvoted as opposed to other Hillary videos lololol

 

[Atilac]

/pol/ new thing is using "googles" as slang for niggers. Idk why, they don't seem the sort to mask their racism.

 

[Bowdz]

I'm cautiously optimistic... I noticed a stark change in a lot of my pro-Bernie friend's post after this.

It's like, they truly thought Hillary was a reptilian robot.

It really is stupid, but if people are being bombarded by a one sided caricature of a candidate in a vacuum, then it will start to impact their view of that candidate. Basically allowed Trump to define all of her coverage in August and did nothing to rebut it in a proactive way.

The speed of the modern news cycle doesn't allow candidates to define themselves and then back off. They need to constantly be defining themselves to the public.

 

[Cybit]

I know he didn't mention it but that's what he was thinking about.

And while you're right that a trend line adjustment may make sense, there's two problems with the way Silver does it.

1. Through a Loess Regression, which is waaaay too aggressive for what he's doing.

2. He does the trend line among the same pollster, not among all the pollsters combined. This is BAD MATH. Like, comically bad math. The kind your econometrics professor would fail you for doing. You, cannot set up your trend line data this way. This is why his model is being so wacky.

This is why I keep saying he doesn't "understand" statistics. He's making a simple but fatal mistake in the setup of the model because he know how to use math but not how to apply it, here.

edit: I'd also like to state his reasoning demonstrate really bad fucking math.

1) I thought using Loess was because he wanted to be able to modify the smoothing factor over time to match empirical data taken from earlier elections.

2) I think Nate is worried that if he combines polls, based on the differing methodology of each poll and a potential for an unaccounted for systemic bias, he would be mixing data points in the trend line that are fundamentally different? Though I would like to see a version of the model where he used the other factors to try to weight the various pollsters and just go with "if the polls are systemically biased, the model blows up, and it happens". I mean, he's used LOESS before, and IIRC, original PECOTA basically does what I suggested, which is try to normalize the values as close as they can, and then uses all of the points. So I guess I find it weird that he'd know to do that in 2003 but then not do it in this model unless there was some legitimate reasoning behind it.

I'm going to probably nerd the hell out when Wang / Cohn / 538 do their post election model breakdowns.

Oddly enough, his model basically nailed the GOP primary perfectly - it was his qualitative commenting (aka pundit-ing) that messed it up. So I get why he's just letting the model speak for itself this time instead of trying to do the same kind of qualitative punditry that was during the GOP primary.

 

[Mighty Chin]

538: 61.6%

https://youtu.be/BPNTC7uZYrI

 

[Zukkoyaki]

What we're seeing is a lot of people realizing, "Oh shit, Hillary Clinton is a real person! With like, emotion and a sense of humor and stuff."

 

[PantherLotus]

The white vote, explained.

If you are don't have a college degree and are super religious, Trump is your god-king:

If you have a college degree and you never attend church, Trump looks more Hitler-like.

I'm telling you this is 100% independent of Hillary and actually shows the current political divide for white people.

College + no church = strong dems and Bernie bros
no college + no church = 50% MRAs , 50% Bernie bros

no college + church = Religious right and white supremacists
College + Church = Fucking Libertarians

 

[RustyNails]

LMAO I'm just now reading the youtube comments on Hill's Between Two Ferns, and they're all like "This is amazing she looks so awful!! OMG She's so pissed this is a disaster!!! I bet Zach "commits suicide" next week after tanking Hillary even further!!"

How are they this stupid.

That also probably goes a way in explaining it being mostly upvoted as opposed to other Hillary videos lololol

I wonder how long before Trump tweets about this.

 

[PantherLotus]

Also: people are massively overreading the B2F segment. No, this is not 'widespread acceptance of Hillary as a person,' this is a viral thing where everbody gets something they wanted. Dems think Hillary looks good and Zack got in some zingers on Trump; Conservatives think Zack tore her to pieces because they don't understand comedy.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I wonder how long before Trump tweets about this.

I don't think he can get his head around something like Between Two Ferns. I'm pretty sure he just sees a blank screen when he watches it.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

What we're seeing is a lot of people realizing, "Oh shit, Hillary Clinton is a real person! With like, emotion and a sense of humor and stuff."

Pretty much.

 

[Debirudog]

LMAO I'm just now reading the youtube comments on Hill's Between Two Ferns, and they're all like "This is amazing she looks so awful!! OMG She's so pissed this is a disaster!!! I bet Zach "commits suicide" next week after tanking Hillary even further!!"

How are they this stupid.

That also probably goes a way in explaining it being mostly upvoted as opposed to other Hillary videos lololol

Welp, there goes my optimism. People can't tell shit.