|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees.
|
|
|
On October 17 2016 10:19 PassiveAce wrote:
^cant tell if sarcasm
Pure shitpost. Just trying to get a rise out of people.
User was warned for this post
|
United States41995 Posts
On October 17 2016 09:42 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ seems like the path of least resistance is ohio, north carolina, florida, georgia, nevada, iowa, wisconsin? assuming he wins utah and arizona unlikely if you are relying on 538's model
Wisconsin isn't realistic at all though.
|
On October 17 2016 10:21 Plansix wrote:Pure shitpost. Just trying to get a rise out of people.
Yes, that's what you do.
User was warned for this post
|
United States41995 Posts
On October 17 2016 10:19 PassiveAce wrote:
^cant tell if sarcasm
Not sarcasm. He's really the kind of noun who would think that.
|
On October 17 2016 10:19 PassiveAce wrote:
^cant tell if sarcasm
It's a normal post out of RIK.
|
United States41995 Posts
On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees.
For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it.
|
On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it.
If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all.
|
On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone
it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to.
|
On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all.
Alright, I'll bite.
Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk.
By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure.
|
Hilarious thing is crowd attendance can't even be verified because Trump lies about his numbers.
|
On October 17 2016 10:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:42 PassiveAce wrote:On October 17 2016 09:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote It really is a lock. Show me an electoral map where Trump wins, tyty. Use this tool, post a map where Trump has 270 and we'll look at what he needs to win for that map to be true. http://www.270towin.com/ seems like the path of least resistance is ohio, north carolina, florida, georgia, nevada, iowa, wisconsin? assuming he wins utah and arizona unlikely if you are relying on 538's model Wisconsin isn't realistic at all though.
yeah a lot of it isnt realistic. that path is is like winning 7 out of 7 coin flips. and the coin is loaded against you.
|
On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure.
While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story.
Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye.
But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind.
Not going to count that out.
|
On October 17 2016 10:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:00 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 09:47 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 17 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 17 2016 07:08 Nakajin wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy. (Ok that was a little mean, sorry) here's some reasons: gambling addiction. They think it provides more meaningful information than polling. They're only betting on other country's stuff. as a hedge against risk. they're otherwise horrible people who care about democracy (i.e. they'd have no problem betting on life/death matters) .. I like how you basically pre-suppose betting on an election is morally questionable. I would almost go as far as to say it is less questionable than f.e sports betting. In sports betting you end up with match fixing, but the election is so huge for both sides it basically dwarfs any incentive some group with money on it could produce. Except maybe if Trump had money on Clinton I guess. I am open to there being other reasons betting on the election is wrong, but I do not believe it to be so obvious you can assume it without having stated a single argument as to why. gonna have to call you an idiot, cuz you are. I was RESPONDING to someone who found it questionable, hence my listing of reasons. Pay attention to what was said. Bit quick to call names because someone didn't read every post in the thread religiously, aren't we? There are more diplomatic ways to correct someone it's not every post in the thread; it was the post i'd quoted, so it was right there, and there was no excuse to miss it. especially since he was attacking me. he failed ot read the post he was responding to.
...or he just guessed at how you felt about political betting based on a line like "they're otherwise horrible people..."? It's hardly the first time someone misread someone's position in an internet argument by walking in partway through. Reading your post, I also assumed you were, in general, opposed to political betting. I can appreciate the brazenness of calling someone with a moderator tag an idiot, but seriously, if someone misunderstood your position just explain that, don't be a dick about it.
|
On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out.
You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win?
|
On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win?
That depends really.
Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event.
But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign.
And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president.
|
On October 17 2016 10:04 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 09:27 oBlade wrote:On October 17 2016 09:18 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 09:15 oBlade wrote:On October 17 2016 09:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 17 2016 08:59 Dan HH wrote:On October 17 2016 08:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 17 2016 08:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote:
So the odds now with bookies
Trump 5
Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote The most conservative statistical model out there that I'm aware of (538 polls-plus) gives Trump worse odds than 5-1. It's pretty unlikely the interest groups are rigging the odds through capital. And the final poll before the brexit vote had remain up by 10 points.It was also the largest sample size of all polls.Explain that? Keep trusting those phony polls, plenty here going to get a huge shock come election day. I've already explained it to you the last time you brought this shit up, Brexit doesn't void polling. It was a one off vote with no precedent and no proper baseline, an issue that is not present in cyclical elections. You can't explain away a 12 point discrepancy between polling and the final result.Nice sidestep there.Drudge through the UK politics thread i'm sure youll find dozens of claims that brexit will never win.Maybe some of those predictions were even made by you. Yes, polls are interesting, but people who can only think through polls are tiring. Do you have a better method for figuring out what the population thinks and predicting who will win? You don't need to predict the winner, it's not a big priority. People have explained this before in the thread, in an election you don't get extra points for choosing the right answer. So you're not doubting the efficacy of polling, just complaining about horse race reporting? Surely the discussions of a) who should win, and b) who is going to win are both legitimate ones to have. Right now, for instance, it seems pretty meaningless to discuss policy implications of Trump's various plans when by all indications he won't have any chance to implement them.
It takes less than a second to read a poll margin, there's nothing to talk about. The growing pollster obsession has been cancer for politics. When people talk about polls, it would be better to talk about them as such. Like PPP polls. Some polls are real surveys. It creates this cooperative game atmosphere and turns people into a mob. It didn't used to be like this in the 20th century, and it's not helping our system. Instead, people report the election like it's a horse race, as you said. The truth is polls change, polls fail, and unlikely things happen.
|
On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president.
Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no?
|
On October 17 2016 10:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2016 10:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:33 ChristianS wrote:On October 17 2016 10:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 17 2016 10:27 KwarK wrote:On October 17 2016 10:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Guys, any "polls" is bad, can be fabricated, etc.
That's why we have to focus on what can be verified, the crowd attendees. For someone who claims that reality matters you sure do seem to have a difficult relationship with it. If you can't disprove what I said with sound logic, its better to not say anything at all. Alright, I'll bite. Polls are, at worst, problematic because there are a lot of different methodologies, each with their own problems, that tend to produce different kinds of results. What you have proposed is to ignore the variety of methodologies out there and use a single methodology which is by far more problematic than any of the others, for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest is that your methodology doesn't even measure voter appeal, it just measures how much someone would want to see that person talk. By this metric, Kanye has this election in the bag for sure. While Trump says egregious things, Kanye is a complete different story. Trump's business model is a on grander scale than Kanye. But who knows, maybe Kanye DOES have a brilliant plan in mind. Not going to count that out. You misunderstand: if you supplant polls as election predictors by "who draws the biggest crowds," neither Hillary or Trump will win, because Kanye can pull way bigger crowds than either. Hell, he charges a bunch of money and makes people book way in advance, and still pulls massive crowds. How can he not win? That depends really. Because crowd gatherer for a music event is different than political event. But both of us won't know what exactly will happen until Kanye does decide to campaign. And if he can pull it off, it just shows that your average American wants a showman being the president. Ah, so we're digging into the methodology more. Okay, so I agree that pulling crowds for a music event is very different than pulling crowds for a political event. Can we also agree that pulling crowds for a political event is also very different than pulling crowds to a voting booth? I, for instance, have little interest in seeing either Trump or Hillary speak, but I fully intend to vote. So your proposed methodology would overlook people like me, no?
Yes but attendee number is still a more accurate comparison than polls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
