• 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 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Texas:

👀 Compared to '12 2nd day early voting, Travis County more than doubled votes and Dallas County up ~65%. Obama won Dallas by 16% and won Travis by 24% 👀

Lines here in Austin are 2-3 hours still.

In 2012 I walked in and voted with zero wait.

LV models here may not account for the tons of liberals who have been waiting in the wings for any chance at all to turn the state Blue.
 
Also, I say this weekly, Andrea Mitchell is the fucking worst.

"Early voting in Florida looks good for Democrats. There's even a small uptake in Hispanic voting."

It's up 99%!

That's like me saying my alcohol mixes are a small affront to mixology.
 

Slayven

Member
Lines here in Austin are 2-3 hours still.

In 2012 I walked in and voted with zero wait.

LV models here may not account for the tons of liberals who have been waiting in the wings for any chance at all to turn the state Blue.

It would be Trump's luck that there isn't a secret Trump voter, but a secret Hillary voter
 

Emarv

Member
Have you noticed Bad Nate last couple of days: "the polls look really good for Hillary right now, but what if there is a systemic polling problem? Not saying there is, but what if? Just asking?"
Yup. He said it on the podcast too and Harry tweeted a nod to the same idea last night.

They're being needlessly misleading and manipulative, and it's really pissing me off.
 

Toxi

Banned
Seriously though, there's something baffling to me about Nate Silver implying there's a systemic polling issue when his entire website is dedicated to making predictions based on a poll aggregate.

An aggregate helps eliminate the issue of variance, but it doesn't do anything if the polls are all skewed in the same way.
 
Lines here in Austin are 2-3 hours still.

In 2012 I walked in and voted with zero wait.

LV models here may not account for the tons of liberals who have been waiting in the wings for any chance at all to turn the state Blue.
That's awesome--it's disappointing that Bexar hasn't turned out as well though. Maybe their number is depressed by republicans staying home.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Trump going to speak to supporters in Israel via video.

I wonder what his supporters will think anout that.

🤔🤔🤔🤔
 
If only the election had started already--say, a week or two ago--and we had a significant percentage of actual voting demographic data to look for any sign of a systemic polling error.

Ah, well.
 
Hanity said:
I have an offer for the president. I will charter a plane for you and your family. I will make sure it's as big a plane as Air Force One, what you have grown accustomed to, in other words. Taxpayer-funded plane. I don’t know where I’m going to get it. Maybe I'll ask Trump if I can charter his plane for Obama. I will charter Donald Trump's plane if he'll let me, and I will charter it to the country of your choice. You want to go to Canada? I'll pay for you to go to Canada. You want to go to Kenya? I'll pay for you to go to Kenya. Jakarta, where you went to school back in the day, you can go back there. Anywhere you want to go. I'll put the finest food, caviar, champagne, you name it. I have one stipulation, you can't come back.

some mighty fine economic anxiety there!
 

Emarv

Member
Seriously though, there's something baffling to me about Nate Silver implying there's a systemic polling issue when his entire website is dedicated to making predictions based on a poll aggregate.

An aggregate helps eliminate the issue of variance, but it doesn't do anything if the polls are all skewed in the same way.
It's why I honestly don't think it's about clicks. If all polls have a issue, then his entire site and work have been worthless. It's counter-intuitive to wanting to go to his site to see the new polling numbers.

Nate is a contrarian at heart. I'm convinced this is what drives a lot of this and a lot of his weird statements this year. He enjoys being the one standing off to the side saying "Maybe everyone else is wrong and I'm right, I guess we'll see".

Because other than that, I see no advantage for him to call into question his entire model.
 
IIRC, at the point the race was called for Obama, he was actually behind in the popular vote.

Then California came in.

Correct. Romney was ahead in the popular vote count when Ohio was projected for Obama (putting his projected Electoral Vote total over 270) and a lot of people took this as meaning there would be a divergence between the popular and electoral votes. In general, people are bad at understanding that returns aren't necessarily representative. Witness the 2012 Election Night OT where people were panicking when Romney had popular and electoral vote leads early and when returns from rural Virginia put Romney up in that state.

I probably won't be able to get around to it, but I'd love to throw some sort of guide to watching the returns that explains some of this stuff.
 
So, I don't care if Andrea talks about emails all day. But, if you're going to do that, why the hell do you go to a rally and try to talk about them!?
 

Slayven

Member
So, I don't care if Andrea talks about emails all day. But, if you're going to do that, why the hell do you go to a rally and try to talk about them!?

That is weird as fuck, and she is trying to stir up shit with Jeff Weaver. Does she hate Hillary or something?
 

Geg

Member
Seeing that Arkansas post in the last page had me thinking, how often are there presidential elections where the two main candidates are from the same "home" state like this one?
 

mo60

Member
Silver is an idiot. If there's a polling error it's more likely in Clinton's favor anyway.

Some pepple really want this election to end up like that BC election in 2013 were the left wing party was leading by like a mid single digit margin against the incumbent party and the left wing party ended up losing the election by like 4 points.
 

GutsOfThor

Member
I'm waiting to get my hair cut right now and the lady ahead of me is a trump deplorable talking about how trump gets thousands of people at his rallies which means he will win.

Help me gaf.....
 
That is weird as fuck, and she is trying to stir up shit with Jeff Weaver. Does she hate Hillary or something?

This is all gut-level guessing, but I think her Clinton Mania stems from her marriage to Greenspan. He was savaged by Liberals, especially Krugman after he provided cover for W's tax cuts, and overseeing the Tech Bubble burst.

It's either that or the Clinton's killed her cat at some point, and she's got a vendetta.
 

PBY

Banned
I'm waiting to get my hair cut right now and the lady ahead of me is a trump deplorable talking about how trump gets thousands of people at his rallies which means he will win.

Help me gaf.....

A good percentage of the country supports Trump

just ignore
 

Toxi

Banned
It's why I honestly don't think it's about clicks. If all polls have a issue, then his entire site and work have been worthless. It's counter-intuitive to wanting to go to his site to see the new polling numbers.

Nate is a contrarian at heart. I'm convinced this is what drives a lot of this and a lot of his weird statements this year. He enjoys being the one standing off to the side saying "Maybe everyone else is wrong and I'm right, I guess we'll see".

Because other than that, I see no advantage for him to call into question his entire model.
I almost feel like it's an attempt to cover his ass if his predictions aren't accurate. "My model's not the problem, the polls are the problem" Even though he's choosing to use those polls for his model. It's like building a rocket out of cardboard and telling people cardboard's probably not the right material to build a rocket out of.
 

sazzy

Member
senior adviser

koqupt.png
 

Wilsongt

Member
Middle school students in Charleston won’t be learning about birth control or healthy relationships, thanks to a decision from school board members who are worried that will lead them to start having sex.
When the Charleston County School Board voted this week to approve a new version of its middle school sex education curriculum, it decided to exclude an appendix with information about how to tell a partner you don’t want to have sex as well as information about STDs, and HIV and qualities of healthy and unhealthy relationships. This appendix was recommended by the district’s health advisory committee.

Students would have learned about some of these issues through role-playing games. But according to The Post and Courier, board member Tom Ducker thinks those activities downplay the seriousness of the issue and encourage students to have sex. “And I don’t think most middle schoolers are even thinking about sex,” Ducker added.


How does SC rate with teen pregnancies?

The data says otherwise. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 40 percent of South Carolina high school youth reported having sex and 6 percent of those surveyed had sex before age 13. In 2010, 50 percent of all pregnancies in the state were unintended, and the teen pregnancy rate was 59 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 years old— both slightly higher than the national numbers.


One of the reasons for rejection?

But the fact that the role-playing activities acknowledge the existence of bisexual, lesbian, and gay people apparently didn’t sit well with board members, who called the appendix “offensive.”

I'm sorry my sex is offensive to you, you Ducker.

What about healthy, "normal" relationships?

The board also rejected discussion of healthy relationships. For example, the students were to discuss characteristics of healthy relationships, such as open communication, trust, equality, having shared interests, and managing conflict well. The students would also learn that controlling behavior, extreme jealousy, isolation from friends and family, and pressure to do things you don’t want to do are characteristics of unhealthy relationships.

Totally okay since all teens in SC have healthy relationships, right?

These are relevant discussions for teens. According to the 2015 CDC survey, 8 percent of South Carolina high school youth said they experienced physical dating violence and 7.6 percent said they experienced sexual dating violence in particular. Nationally, the percentage of students reporting this violence is a little higher, at 9.6 and 10.6 percent of high school youth, respectively.

Oh.

Get fucked you old ass, abstinence only, scared of healthy sexual relationship, gay hating, child abusing mother fuckers.
 

Emarv

Member
I mean, in a way, I feel bad for John King and Steve Kornacki. Every day they're told to go to that wall and try to make the race look interesting when it's just not anymore. So now it's "spend a few seconds on the real map and Trump's insanely narrow path to victory, and then spend the majority of the time having fun with silly scenarios!"
 
Seeing that Arkansas post in the last page had me thinking, how often are there presidential elections where the two main candidates are from the same "home" state like this one?

It definitely happens. Without going back and checking...

1860 was a bit unusual because of the split in the Democratic Party, but the "official" nominees (Lincoln and Douglas) were both from Illinois.

1920 put the governor of Ohio (Cox) against an Ohio Senator (Harding).

1944 had former New York Governor turned President FDR against New York Governor Tom Dewey. Come to think of it, I think Willkie (1940) also had NY as his home state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom