|
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. |
On October 28 2016 23:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 22:33 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2016 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2016 21:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Cherry picking polls? You've got three polls (Gravis, LA Times (Trump+2), Rasmussen) where Trump and Clinton are within two percent of each other, IDB is at 3% Clinton today and this Washpost poll which was showing a 12% differential on the 23rd now shows a 4% margin for the 26th.We're not talking one or two polls we're talking several showing a very close race now - And thats with the over representation of democrats in the sample set. Mate, look, there are people whose job it is to aggregate polls. You want to not cherry pick national polls, you look at that : http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/This is good data... ... and that gives you +5,6 in favour of Clinton. Now if the purpose of the thread is to convince each other on how to interpret data because you REALLY want Trump to be closer than he is and I REALLY want Clinton to be certain of winning, you'll do it without me. But again, if what we want to are fact to establish a solid basis for a conversation or a debate, you look at professional poll aggregator because everything else is basically meaningless. The left-leaning Washington Post even commented on it. Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton during the past week, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, solidifying support among core Republican groups as well as political independents.
Roughly 6 in 10 still expect Clinton to prevail, while the poll finds shrinking concerns about the accuracy of the vote count and voter fraud in the election.
Clinton holds a slight 48-44 percent edge over Trump among likely voters, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 4 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 1 percent in the survey completed Sunday through Wednesday. Clinton held a six-point edge in the previous wave and a 12-point edge in the first wave of the tracking poll by ABC News Sunday (50 percent Clinton vs. 38 percent Trump). In a two-candidate contest, Clinton holds a five-point edge over Trump, 50 to 45 percent.
Trump’s growth in support from 38 percent to 44 percent is fueled by shored-up support among Republican-leaning voting groups as well as a significant boost among political independents. Trump has made up ground among whites, particularly those without college degrees and women. Trump now leads by a 30 percentage point margin among white voters without college degrees, up from 20 points from this weekend. White women now tilt toward Trump by 48 to 43 percent after leaning 49 to 43 percent in Clinton’s favor before. Just because your gal has a small spot of bad news doesn't mean it's automatically Trump doing his polls-are-wrong schtick again. On October 28 2016 20:12 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 20:06 Laurens wrote:
Can someone post what the Kirk dude said? I can't understand the video. Something something George Washington. Apparently this is it: “I’d forgotten that your parents came all the way from Thailand to serve George Washington,” How is that racist? He's obviously alleging asians can't be patriotic as a matter of racial incapability. She bled for this nation, families like hers are obviously better equipped to know what it means to bleed and die, and how dare you imply otherwise, racist. I'm sure all the people saying their white skin was the reason they were acquitted will publicly repent of their implicit racism and fault prosecutors for declining to inform the defense of the informant. Except that the Washington Post relies on its own poll, which is one in a very big pool that one has to consider. Look guys, the rice has tightened, nobody debates that: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/... but screaming "OMG only one point difference!!!" because of one or two polls while ignoring other that give Clinton +12 makes no sense. I don't know what we are arguing about. I suggest we stick with 538, or any really good quality aggregator when we discuss polls, because the Washington Post or any other source that relies on their own poll only will only lead in cherry picking vs cherry picking. Unless of course the idea is to convince yourself while ignoring the whole picture, but that's not very interesting. So, objectively and with no partisan bias : the race has tightened a bit, the best aggregator gives Clinton somewhere between +5,5 and +6 and a 81% of winning the whole thing. Other aggregator give Clinton better chances but are probably not reliable. Single polls say a lot of things and matter little. Is that something we can agree on?
The race has tightened a bit, Clinton will probably still win, heavy reliance on one poll aggregator is a bad idea, heavy reliance on a single poll to the exclusion of others is a bad idea ... sure.
I'm not going to accuse you of deflecting, but I haven't been screaming "one point difference." When you say "the rice[sic] has tightened, nobody debates that," the only person that brought it up is shamed on the rest of the post. So pardon me when I say remarking on the changing political situation is totally proper, not this "nobody debates that" mind-reading you apparently want me to do. Half the conservative posters in the thread don't know what part of their post will be called racist, or straw-manning, or contentious, totally true but uninteresting, or totally ludicrous. Maybe now I understand you don't dispute the race is tighter, but not before.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are basically 2 sources of uncertainty remaining, 1.5 if you think turnout is decently predicted by the positive early voting numbers for hrc.
the other one is how the 'undecided' will break. at this particular point in time, the difference between trump and hrc is too huge for this one to matter. but if they are say, 2.5 points apart, the undecided voters going on collective idiocy can't be ruled out.
|
|
|
There is a much simpler way to talk about her election than focusing on national polls.
Basically let's assume Trump wins EVERY "tossup" state or state he is within 5 points of her, he still loses. He then needs to win one of the state's he is losing by almost double digits, the two closest are Colorado and Pennsylvania. There are a lot of reasons Republicans never win Pennsylvania in good years (presidential specifically) that i can't get into while at work but if people are curious if can in a few hours.
That leaves Colorado. Since the president took it in 2008 the demographics have continued to go HARD for Democrats and thats why what used to be a solid red state is now a pretty solid blue.
Since both of those are fairly unwinnable he can't in the election. By the way this is also a HUGE problem or the GOP going forward.
|
On October 29 2016 00:52 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:37 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 29 2016 00:29 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 00:15 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 23:17 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Challenging someone’s right to their America heritage based on the fact that they are half Asian/black/Indian/whatever is either racist or bigoted. I get that it may not directly translate to EU cultures, but it is racist here in the US. Seriously, US TL members spend a lot of time in this thread explaining US race relations to people who are not from this country and do not live here. I would never dream of telling someone from Japan was is or isn’t offensive in their culture, so I don’t know why every non-American feels comfortable presenting their hot take on US race relations with such confidence. edit: The statement is out of line, but it is also a common tactic used by racists in the US. I know this is kinda cheap, so I'll try to pre-empt any outrage by saying that at the end of this post I defer to your better knowledge!  But first: Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. I just don't see how this qualifies...? MAYBE under this definition?? noun
1.
the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2.
abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief I get what you are saying, and I see your point about using it as a way of making her somehow less American (seems like an absolutely insane thing to try to do to someone who lost 2 legs fighting for said country.... but idiots will be idiots I guess). It really sounded like an ill-advised and incredibly tasteless joke to me to score cheap points, but honestly you have a point in that I'm not American so I will not argue any more on this topic. On October 28 2016 23:34 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2016 23:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Which is an argument for why it's NOT a racist remark, just a really tasteless/classless comment towards a veteran. I think when you call something like this 'racist' you diminish the meaning of that word, which to me is incredibly strong. On October 28 2016 21:44 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On October 28 2016 21:05 Laurens wrote:On October 28 2016 21:02 Plansix wrote:
You do know they are both running for the same seat in the senate? He knows who she is.... Yes, hence the (sarcastic) "Presumably the fact that she is from Thailand is known to Kirk" Someone's heritage shouldn't be some kind of "gotem" that you can use to discredit their words. If you are arguing with a full citizen from birth for why you should be in the government, their race should not be tire argument for why you are better fit to be x position. It should not be mentioned, and had no place in that room. Of course it has no place, but it wasn't racist. It was a tasteless joke/quip trying to score cheap points with god knows who. Isn't there some more nuanced word we can use? Including this with true racism under one umbrella term just feels wrong to me :/ I 100% agree that his statement is completely out of line. The word 'tasteless' is synonymous to racist in its modern usage. Be wise and accept the change. Mourn the loss of a strong word that, in the past, should prompt outrage. We even have a TeamLiquid thread racist for such acts as calling rioters scum. It just really bothers me when acts get lumped together under one term, where on the one end of the spectrum I might just barely get mad were I exposed to it, while on the other I'd literally kill someone for doing it to me. It feels like the word loses its usefulness at that point (not specifically talking about racism here but I think there's a few words that have had this happen to them). I wish there was more nuance... This is a good post. I’m in the middle of something right now and I’ll respond on lunch. But US politics has a specific tactic called Dog Whistle racism that is often used to court racist/pander to racist. And the defense of that tactic is often that it was just an ignorant or idiotic statement, but they didn’t mean to be racist. Hm, I see, yeah I've heard it referred to a bunch of times, somehow expected it to be more --- insidious? I guess is the word. Well, if it is a repeated thing that happens, then it's easier for me to see the merit. EDIT: Also @LegalLord, interesting post. Sorry for making your nightmare of waking up to a bunch of discussions about racism come true It did use to be more incidious but a few years ago a lot of left leaning groups started using the word far more casually knowing the stigma that it used to carry and as such it lost that stigma because for its misuse and that is truly unfortunate.
The more diverse your community is, the more you think about things being possibly racist. Communities in Middle of Nowhere, Kentuckybamavadahoma aren't hurt nearly as much by accusations of racism against people in huge cities. At my high school (in a very large city), the largest ethnic group is white people, with 35%; IF you get called a racist, the % of people at my school who would get angry at you is much higher than the % of people from small towns who would get angry at you, whites included.
More people can say "I have a friend who is x race and they aren't like that, so don't generalize" if there are more minorities. This usually explains the broad views across the US in terms of racism, and why people from other countries with much lower minority populations have a harder time visualizing why someone could get so offended by little comments like the one from the video.
|
|
|
Those type of remarks are much more damaging to Senate candidates than they are to representatives or lower offices. Pretty much every state besides Wyoming has at least one large urban center (which are generally diverse). For lower offices the concern is more that it can harm the image of the party as a whole if what they say is sufficiently inflammatory, so the party itself may choose to force them out. See for example don yelton, an idiotic GOP county chair in 2013 who admitted that NC voter ID laws were designed to harm Democrats while calling blacks lazy. The GOP couldn't drop him fast enough.
That's part of why Trump has been so awful as a candidate, he's extremely harmful to the GOP brand as a whole. It is why so many came out asking for him to drop out after the bush tape came out - they deemed that him leaving the race would be less harmful overall at that point.
But overall the bar is lower for a gaffe to be harmful the more people are represented by the position a person is running for. Mark Kirk's comments were racist in a way that might take two sentences to explain to the average voter, which is like 100x more time than they would give to a their state house member or something.
|
Meh, it's pretty much always a bad idea to question someone's military service in the US. Most people have a lot of respect for veterans and their families.
|
i'm mostly okay with kirk. he's the kind of republican i'd be okay with being in the same party as.
|
On October 29 2016 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:
It is stupid anyway : if you are born in the US and had your education in the US, then you can rightfully talk about your american heritage, even if you're not white, or even if you have no biological link to any american forefathers.
Actually, if this would hold up, and the usa wasn't extremly europeanheritage dominated, it would be so damn beautifull.
|
FBI to Re-Open Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server
The FBI will re-open its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, bureau director James Comey said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he wrote.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631
The saga continues
|
On October 29 2016 02:24 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +FBI to Re-Open Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server
The FBI will re-open its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, bureau director James Comey said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he wrote. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631The saga continues
Emailghazi. What is dead may never die
|
On October 29 2016 02:24 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +FBI to Re-Open Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server
The FBI will re-open its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, bureau director James Comey said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he wrote. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631The saga continues
surely this will be what takes down hillary clinton
|
2016 is very definitively the year of emails at this point.
|
On October 29 2016 02:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 02:24 Dan HH wrote:FBI to Re-Open Investigation Into Hillary Clinton's Email Server
The FBI will re-open its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, bureau director James Comey said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he wrote. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631The saga continues Emailghazi. What is dead may never die
FBI: We have reopened the investigation to look into more emails that were discovered yesterday. They could be nothing, but we are going to double check. I am also writing to clear up my testimony before congress, as i said the investigation was completed.
Republicans/Trump: The FBI is reconsidering sending Clinton to jail for being a criminal.
|
Speaking of emails, apparently Russian emails were leaked by Ukrainian hackers that show connections to the East Ukrainian civil war. No link at this point because it's a dubious story reported only by unreliable sources, Russia says the leaks are fake, and Ukrainian intelligence is well known for making shit up when they feel it is appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, it's a story that exists and said dubious sources connect it to Biden's statement about proportional response.
|
On October 29 2016 02:04 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:01 WhiteDog wrote:
It is stupid anyway : if you are born in the US and had your education in the US, then you can rightfully talk about your american heritage, even if you're not white, or even if you have no biological link to any american forefathers. Actually, if this would hold up, and the usa wasn't extremly europeanheritage dominated, it would be so damn beautifull.
a nationless nation without culture. a self-negation. united only by a commitment to pluralism, liberal values, and common borders.
|
United States44256 Posts
Isn't the point of America that it is a commitment to American values, as defined in the constitution and upheld by American history, that defines what it is to be an American? Not the nation of your birth, the colour of your skin, the religion you practice or anything else.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On October 29 2016 00:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 00:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 00:48 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2016 00:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2016 00:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 00:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2016 00:09 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 29 2016 00:00 IgnE wrote:
can we agree the election is over and talking about polls is boring? because both are true. Nate Silver at least doesn't agree on the first point. The race is not over. 18% chances is not great, but it's far from 0%. Although in this context, given that it's a one-time event, 18% just means a degree of belief (based on the 538 model) rather than a chance in the more commonly thought-of definition of probability (e.g. that Trump would win 18 out of 100 times). A technical difference, but an important one. I think 18% by 538 is the estimate of their 10 000 simulation of the race, based on the statistical degree of uncertainty of the polls. I don't think it's a degree of belief, but then again, I'm not a statistician. Maybe someone knows better how to interpret the whole thing? I can do that, but I'll be rather simplistic and skim over a lot of the details that I don't think too many people care about. Sorry to anyone who thinks I'm oversimplifying. So there are basically two major "schools" of thought in statistics/probability: the frequentists and the Bayesians. The frequentist interpretation of "probabilities" is pretty much what you intuitively think of as probabilities: the odds of getting the result when you repeat the experiment a lot. This is the classic, and more deeply rooted, interpretation of probability, but it has quite a lot of limits on what you can actually do with it. The Bayesian interpretation(s) are interpretations that try to very quickly make predictions based on a small amount of prior data, and often to predict the chances of events that can happen only once. This is the more "modern" branch of statistics and it's gained a lot of steam because it does work, even if it does have the problem of giving terrible results if your prior information isn't very good. But the interpretation of what probabilities themselves are is very different, and in this case the most appropriate definition is a Bayesian one: a state of knowledge, or more appropriately in this case, a degree of belief. And while those simulations are helpful, they are just that: simulations. The actual event only happens once. Nate Silver is very Bayesian in his analysis. No problem with that but the technical difference is important to note because it just tells us that it's not random chance whether or not Trump wins - it's just how confident, based on the 538 assumptions, the model is that Trump will win the election. That's quite fascinating, thanks. I had no idea  well he is also wrong if he wants to say that a frequentist model (purely poll based) would have trump closer. the bayesian priors in 538's structural model give trump a fighting chance, but it's basically just a guess informed by history and some political science. The point is that you can't really even be frequentist effectively since this is a one-time event, and that saying that "Trump has an 18% chance" isn't true in the sense that people think of probabilities - the interpretation of "what a probability is" is more Bayesian in nature, and of course according to whatever model 538 uses. In the real world, if the election were to be re-run 100 times (e.g. let's say you got 100 ballots at the polling station) then chances are the result would be the same each time. we don't know the true distribution so in that sense it's impossible to be frequentist, but the poll only model that the PEC uses is basically looking at historical poll behavior and using that to construct their model. it's not a structural model in the sense of modeling an idea of how you think the electorate responds to various external conditions. in looking at historical poll behavior, they get around the 'one time event' thing. the claim though is that this election is a pretty unique one, and i tend to buy that argument and look beyond the polls.
Man, that PEC methodology seems extremely sketch after reading through it. It's hard to say whether they are just being opaque or overly simplistic about how they do their analysis. I would go with the latter.
Besides being a lot more comprehensive, I like Nate Silver's underlying assumptions about which data is more valid a lot more than PEC's here. Though that is certainly a different topic than Bayesian vs frequentist approaches to the interpretation of what a probability actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
