|
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. |
your Country52797 Posts
On October 29 2016 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
headlines: THE FBI HAS FOUND NEW EMAILS AND MUST REVIEW THEM AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATION
what probably happened: some analyst had a stack of emails to review printed out and left them in the print room. some guy was cleaning out the print room and noticed that they were left there, so they gotta read them now.
There is no way on earth that something like that would be announced.
|
On October 29 2016 03:05 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 02:55 oneofthem wrote:On October 29 2016 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 00:58 oneofthem wrote: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:
[quote]
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. for data selection PEC only uses state polls. the other major feature of theirs is the use of poll based prior vs economic fundamental priors by other models. they are basically looking at how historical polls have converged to election day and adding an uncertainty to that, then doing some simulations. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/08/03/why-is-the-pec-polls-only-forecast-so-stable/ Their entire shtick is their focus on meta-analysis (lol) and specifically, their idea of the meta margin. I really don't like how they just hide behind "we have these statistical methods to deal with problems" and really just abstract away the issues related to accuracy in polling in a way that doesn't really make sense. They put much less thought into that issue than 538 does, and that is strongly to their detriment. They talk a lot about how stable their model is, but honestly this election is pretty far from stable. There were times when it genuinely seemed that Trump was likely to win. well they have this arbitrary uncertainty parameter that they adjusted to very high for this year. it's just a reflection of the current polling margin that trump is a very bad underdog. it could be possible that the polls are very wrong, or that the race is very volatile (like i see it), and their approach gets upturned. if trump does do significantly better than what the poll aggregates show, it would not be because 538's model is smart. they have a bunch of economic indicators in there that don't capture the source of the current year volatility.
Again, that all just comes off as a bunch of simplistic arbitrarium that makes their whole project seem more like something I'd do for a first or second course statistics project than something I'd publish expecting to be taken seriously.
538, like everyone else, is constrained by the accuracy of polls. They do about as good a job as anyone at filtering the good from the bad, and their model clearly has a lot of thought, and it seems mostly statistically sound, even if they make a fair few assumptions I disagree with. But I would say that "I'm 85% sure Hillary will win" is much more accurate than "I'm 98% sure Hillary will win" based on pretty much everything. Putting statistical models aside for a second and looking at this just from a cursory perspective, the former statement is more logically reasonable, and that corresponds well to a Bayesian "probability as belief" statement.
I could see some scenarios that the polls didn't account for that would lead to a Trump win. They aren't likely, but they are a lot more than 2% likely to occur. So both from a statistical and logical perspective, PEC doesn't seem right to me.
|
On October 29 2016 03:18 KwarK wrote:
Bio, out of curiousity what, for you, is the last date at which someone could throw a nuke into the political process? Day of the election? Day before?
2 days before early voting. This is good enough though
|
On October 29 2016 00:37 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +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
Dog whistle racism is, by design, meant to appear less insidious. It is meant to create the arguments we are currently having, a debate on if something is or isn’t really racist, while also letting racists know that the candidate believes what they believe. The goal is keep those fighting racism preoccupied with convincing others that the candidate is proposing a racist policy or belief. A prime example of this is Richard Nixon, who ran for president as the “law and order candidate” and created our current “war on drugs”.
http://www.ibtimes.com/war-drugs-racist-nixon-aide-admitted-policies-were-designed-target-black-people-anti-2342035
An aid for Nixon recently admitted that the “war on drugs” was simply a way for Nixon to target what he considered to be his politician rivals demographics, blacks and anit-war protesters. We have similar terms in the US that cropped up after the civil rights movement, such as “state’s rights”. After the civil rights movement forced schools to desegregate in southern states, politicians started pandering to the racist demographics using coded language like “state’s right”. The term was perfect for dog whistle racism, as it had a long history in US political debate and could easily be dismissed as harmless. It was used because it was the Federal Government force desegregation on the south and they believed it was the “right of the state” to have whatever racist laws they wanted. They took a term that was used in political debates about the powers of government and turned it into a rally for racist. At the same time, many towns in the south started naming schools, landmarks and streets after southern generals that fought for slave owners, claiming it was all about their “local history”. But in reality, it was so black kids could have to go to a school named after a general that wanted to keep them as slaves.
That is how racism functions in the US for blacks and other minorities. Hard line racists cannot be overt about their racism, so they imply it or simply use coded language that to anyone else would appear harmless. In the case that started all of this, I don’t believe Mark Kink was intending signal to racist to vote for him. He doesn’t seem the type and he doesn’t have a history of doing so. But that sort of statement is what candidate wanting to pander to racists would say. Like at the GOP convention when a speaker said “Let’s make America Great. Let’s make it great for Real Americans”
|
On October 29 2016 03:18 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
headlines: THE FBI HAS FOUND NEW EMAILS AND MUST REVIEW THEM AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATION
what probably happened: some analyst had a stack of emails to review printed out and left them in the print room. some guy was cleaning out the print room and noticed that they were left there, so they gotta read them now. There is no way on earth that something like that would be announced.
comey is obligated to notify the house about any developments. its more that likely these are probably a random batch of emails that they probably had access to, but somehow overlooked in the process. im just using a particularly glib example of how that might have happened.
|
United States43953 Posts
On October 29 2016 03:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:18 KwarK wrote:
Bio, out of curiousity what, for you, is the last date at which someone could throw a nuke into the political process? Day of the election? Day before? 2 days before early voting. This is good enough though
Early voting in Florida already started though. Wouldn't that mean it's too late?
|
On October 29 2016 03:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:18 KwarK wrote:
Bio, out of curiousity what, for you, is the last date at which someone could throw a nuke into the political process? Day of the election? Day before? 2 days before early voting. This is good enough though
you're grasping at straws dude. comey isn't trying to do shit with the election. if he were he would have when he was testifying that they can't pin anything on her. he's just covering his ass by checking all the boxes.
|
On October 29 2016 03:18 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
headlines: THE FBI HAS FOUND NEW EMAILS AND MUST REVIEW THEM AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATION
what probably happened: some analyst had a stack of emails to review printed out and left them in the print room. some guy was cleaning out the print room and noticed that they were left there, so they gotta read them now. There is no way on earth that something like that would be announced.
The only reason this was announced was because the FBI director said the investigation was concluded before congress. If that had not happened, they could have just quietly reviewed teh emails, decided they didn't change the outcome and moved on.
|
Maybe Russia decided to give the FBI the 33000 deleted emails from Hillary's private server that they never recovered.
|
I'll just wait until comey announces whether there's anything significant. Most investigations are an incredibly long, thorough, and boring.
|
On October 29 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 29 2016 02:59 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2016 02:54 biology]major wrote:
The dream is coming true boys, I'm sure whatever Comey found was pretty fucking huge to reopen a case 11 days before the election. Holy shit. What if she wins and then Comey recommends charges The point of reopening investigations is that they haven't even looked yet, so there is nothing "found". Hence the word "investigation". Nah, there is no way he had the balls to open a case 11 days before a fucking election unless he had something. There's no "balls" involved here and there never were any. He just does his job. He is following protocol and doing his job. This could hurt Clinton if something bad is proven, but this could also be a big bump for her if Comey declares her innocence. Comey declaring her innocence would also disincentive republicans from pursuing this as a criminal investigation. That is naive, it's not him just doing his job, it's him throwing a nuke into the political process, and I don't think he would do such a thing unless they really had something. Whatever though, keep believing! Edit: this case isn't going to be resolved in 11 days. So this will only have a political effect until election.
I'll be blunt, I think you slightlyrics delusional at the moment.
You have something out WANT to be true and you are willing to ignore reason and logic completely because you WANT it to true. However, wishing something true doesn't change the fact that everyone else is being rational and you are the one hoping for something with no evidence based merely on the fact that someone had the audacity to do there job regardless of what time of year it is.
|
On October 29 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 29 2016 02:59 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2016 02:54 biology]major wrote:
The dream is coming true boys, I'm sure whatever Comey found was pretty fucking huge to reopen a case 11 days before the election. Holy shit. What if she wins and then Comey recommends charges The point of reopening investigations is that they haven't even looked yet, so there is nothing "found". Hence the word "investigation". Nah, there is no way he had the balls to open a case 11 days before a fucking election unless he had something. There's no "balls" involved here and there never were any. He just does his job. He is following protocol and doing his job. This could hurt Clinton if something bad is proven, but this could also be a big bump for her if Comey declares her innocence. Comey declaring her innocence would also disincentive republicans from pursuing this as a criminal investigation. That is naive, it's not him just doing his job, it's him throwing a nuke into the political process, and I don't think he would do such a thing unless they really had something. Whatever though, keep believing! Edit: this case isn't going to be resolved in 11 days. So this will only have a political effect until election.
No, it is him avoiding being held in contempt by Congress, since he stated under oath that the investigation concluded.
|
On October 29 2016 02:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 02:04 Velr wrote: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.
Culture is reproduced through education, not through biology.
|
On October 29 2016 03:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:12 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 29 2016 02:59 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2016 02:54 biology]major wrote:
The dream is coming true boys, I'm sure whatever Comey found was pretty fucking huge to reopen a case 11 days before the election. Holy shit. What if she wins and then Comey recommends charges The point of reopening investigations is that they haven't even looked yet, so there is nothing "found". Hence the word "investigation". Nah, there is no way he had the balls to open a case 11 days before a fucking election unless he had something. There's no "balls" involved here and there never were any. He just does his job. He is following protocol and doing his job. This could hurt Clinton if something bad is proven, but this could also be a big bump for her if Comey declares her innocence. Comey declaring her innocence would also disincentive republicans from pursuing this as a criminal investigation. That is naive, it's not him just doing his job, it's him throwing a nuke into the political process, and I don't think he would do such a thing unless they really had something. Whatever though, keep believing! Edit: this case isn't going to be resolved in 11 days. So this will only have a political effect until election. No, it is him avoiding being held in contempt by Congress, since he stated under oath that the investigation concluded.
I'm just curious what other unrelated investigation could have turned up pertinent emails about the previous case. Presumably the Clinton Foundation after all the media was commenting on how it certainly looks like the foundation was used to enrich the Clinton's and Mr. Band. Which looks like they probably didn't provably break any laws, but it does highlight how they've neglected to mention the "Foundation does lots of great work, and makes US a TOOOON of money".
Or is the FBI investigating something else entirely where her emails would be relevant?
|
They probably just found more emails in some other issue they were investigating that had some relation to Hillary's server. Maybe some of the missing emails were in there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2016 03:18 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
headlines: THE FBI HAS FOUND NEW EMAILS AND MUST REVIEW THEM AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATION
what probably happened: some analyst had a stack of emails to review printed out and left them in the print room. some guy was cleaning out the print room and noticed that they were left there, so they gotta read them now. There is no way on earth that something like that would be announced.
why not? announcement was for reopening of investigations, because some new material came up.
|
|
|
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide. Instead we have to deal with this Pandora box of Clinton family misconduct, making this election unnecessarily close, and possibly losing it.
|
On October 29 2016 03:44 LegalLord wrote:
They probably just found more emails in some other issue they were investigating that had some relation to Hillary's server. Maybe some of the missing emails were in there.
Or they are parts of email chains they have already reviewed or seen, but at different points. It might not have anything new at all, but it is to much for them to go through quickly.
|
On October 29 2016 03:50 Piledriver wrote:
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide.
I find it pretty ironic that the biggest argument in favor of nominating Hillary was that she is so ungodly electable that it would be folly to choose someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
