|
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. |
Well, I hope he enjoyed his social circle up until this point. And probably his career to boot.
I rebuke with my heart, mind, and soul all the twisted narratives of sexism, misogyny, racism, and classism lay at our feet.
He must be drunk and mad, because surely he means means systemic discrimination in this country, which is neither twisted nor a narrative.
I’m telling you that I’m no longer endorsing her. Vote with your conscience.
Clearly a Cruz plant. And I thought the Republicans could sink no lower!
Speaking of which, I guess some op-ed writers appearing in HuffPo still have consciences and didn't send them off to wherever Hillary's scandals went.
|
I highly doubt either side has something good to leak and it's going to come down to a nail-biter finish
|
Deep divisions inside the FBI and the Justice Department over how to handle investigations dealing with Hillary Clinton will probably fester even after Tuesday’s presidential election and pose a significant test for James B. Comey’s leadership of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency.
The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.
Comey, meanwhile, has come under direct fire for his decision to tell Congress that agents were resuming their investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server — a revelation that put him at odds with his Justice Department bosses and influenced the presidential campaign.
“He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.” [...]
Not long after Comey’s new letter to Congress was made public last week, multiple media outlets reported that he had sent the missive against the advice of top Justice Department officials, who felt that commenting publicly on the inquiry would violate a long-standing policy not to take overt steps in investigations that could have an impact so close to an election. Before the weekend was over, the Wall Street Journal revealed there was a different, ongoing feud between FBI agents in New York and career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department over whether there was cause to investigate the Clinton Foundation. [...]
“I don’t know what your parents taught you, but mine always taught me you can’t care what people think about you. I do,” he said at a recent conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Justice’s Department’s National Security Division. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.”
WaPo
Comey might just survive this as a conflicted but stalwart defender of the institution.
Excerpts from the original story:
The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. “The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ” a person familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.
Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to “stand down,’’ a person familiar with the matter said. [...]
As a result of those complaints, these people said, a senior Justice Department official called the FBI deputy director, Mr. McCabe, on Aug. 12 to say the agents in New York seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions, these people said. The conversation was a tense one, they said, and at one point Mr. McCabe asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’’ The senior Justice Department official replied: ”Of course not.”
WSJ
Just to recap, it's alleged the DOJ kept persisting in demands that the FBI give up the Clinton Foundation investigation. McCabe made a good move: ask them point-blank if they're forbidding the FBI to investigate this.
If yes, the scheme is revealed. If they decline to go that far, he's fine going forward with what he thinks is proper.
|
On November 04 2016 09:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 09:48 Doodsmack wrote:On Thursday, Radar Online claimed to have obtained an except from [Megyn] Kelly’s book “Settle for More,” which hits stands on Nov. 15. The report alleges that Kelly added details of the sexual harassment to her book, being published by HarperCollins, last minute.
In the memoir, Kelly allegedly said that she was first informed that she “captured the attention of Mr. Ailes” by her managing editor in 2005, shortly after she became a legal correspondent in Fox’s Washington bureau. From there, Ailes then apparently began summoning Kelly to his office for a series of meetings.
“Roger began pushing the limits,” reads the excerpt. “There was a pattern to his behavior. I would be called into Roger’s office, he would shut the door, and over the next hour or two, he would engage in a kind of cat-and-mouse game with me — veering between obviously inappropriate sexually charged comments (e.g. about the ‘very sexy bras’ I must have and how he’d like to see me in them) and legitimate professional advice.”
She reportedly alleges that Ailes would offer to advance her career “in exchange for sexual favors,” which she rejected. But in January 2006, Kelly wrote that Ailes tried to grab her repeatedly and kiss her, and when she rejected his advances, he asked, “When is your contract up?” The alleged harassment ended after six months, says the report, likely because Kelly reported Ailes to a supervisor. YahooI really am all for the harshest punishment for these monsters. Ailes is just the kind of guy I would pick to help me debate a woman. Ailes really knows how to get the feel, the measure, of a hostile female. Like him, I don't mind if the woman gets a little feisty when I move in on her. Trump even had the good sense to follow Ailes' advice and to stalk HRC around the stage in the second debate. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/07/media/roger-ailes-donald-trump-presidential-debate-preparation/
Ailes reportedly stopped advising Trump after realizing that Trump isn't capable of focusing  .
|
Comey has definitely come off as a more reasonable government official than Loretta Lynch the blatant partisan. In that Congressional hearing, Lynch definitely acted the way guilty people do. Of course, that's not proof of anything at all, but it's certainly suggestive. This entire investigation ordeal has taken an interesting turn to say the least.
|
Hillary's chances of winning according to FiveThirtyEight only dropped 1.5% today, compared to the last few days where it was dropping as much as 4% a day, I wonder if she'll be able to stop the bleeding. I've got so much nervous energy going into these final 120 hours
|
538 has a really weird model. It's heavily state focussed and strongly adjusts overall ratings if polls in one swing state change. a -9 poll for Clinton in Missouri pushes her down 2% while a +1% nationally only pushes her chances up 0.2%.
I think Nate is putting too much focus on independents and correlation between states. The Princeton consortium has Hillary at 97% or something.
|
Yeah following the effect of single polls on the 538 model can make you scratch your head.
I didn't provide any commentary when I posted this before, but this is a pretty interesting article on polling swings:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/
The basic message is that we know there are few/no people who are actually swapping between Trump and Clinton, yet polling results often imply that there must be. A more important factor they have identified is response bias. I think we all know from experience that the 12 point shift in the ABC poll was obviously not correct. I think the Yougov hypothesis is a lot more reasonable.
|
I'm no stats guy so I can't really tell what makes a model good or not. RealClearPolitics has a tight race as well, if all the states went how their voting aggregates say, Clinton would win, but if Trump won the very tight races of Florida and New Hampshire, it would end tied at 269 and then I have no idea if Congress would support Trump
|
As LegalLord pointed out a few pages ago Nate and Princeton(for example) use two very different approaches. Nate goes with a very complex model which can be prone to overfitting (misinterpreting noise as meaningful data) while the Princeton guy goes with a statistical model that is based on fewer assumptions and less on historical data, which can be more biased(methodologically wrong) but is less prone to overreact when changes come in. There's no real way to tell which better, it's an age old discussion and pretty much a matter of taste, but I think Nate is putting too much focus on changes right now.
|
On November 04 2016 15:34 Nyxisto wrote:
As LegalLord pointed out a few pages ago Nate and Princeton(for example) use two very different approaches. Nate goes with a very complex model which can be prone to overfitting (misinterpreting noise as meaningful data) while the Princeton guy goes with a statistical model that is based on fewer assumptions and less on historical data, which can be more biased(methodologically wrong) but is less prone to overreact when changes come in. There's no real way to tell which better, it's an age old discussion and pretty much a matter of taste, but I think Nate is putting too much focus on changes right now.
If only there was a site that could aggregate the aggregators
|
Who still takes polls seriously? How many times do they have to be wrong for them to lose credibility?
|
On November 04 2016 16:21 Wegandi wrote:
Who still takes polls seriously? How many times do they have to be wrong for them to lose credibility?
I just really like numbers, I'm the kind of person that would watch stock market values all day with no idea what they mean
|
On November 04 2016 16:07 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 15:34 Nyxisto wrote:
As LegalLord pointed out a few pages ago Nate and Princeton(for example) use two very different approaches. Nate goes with a very complex model which can be prone to overfitting (misinterpreting noise as meaningful data) while the Princeton guy goes with a statistical model that is based on fewer assumptions and less on historical data, which can be more biased(methodologically wrong) but is less prone to overreact when changes come in. There's no real way to tell which better, it's an age old discussion and pretty much a matter of taste, but I think Nate is putting too much focus on changes right now. If only there was a site that could aggregate the aggregators
which would run into exact the same problem.
|
On November 04 2016 16:28 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 16:21 Wegandi wrote:
Who still takes polls seriously? How many times do they have to be wrong for them to lose credibility? I just really like numbers, I'm the kind of person that would watch stock market values all day with no idea what they mean
Fair enough, but there is an implicit faithfulness in polling still that given recent history I don't know how anyone can have. It's one thing when cell phones didn't exist and you still had telephone books and public phone records, previous voting histories were decently prescriptive, and voter turnouts were more consistent. None of those things are true today. Using the polls as a barometer of the likelihood of one candidate to win over another is pretty meaningless now imho. They're as much dinosaurs in my view as newspapers.
|
I'm sorry but do you not believe in math lol
all of those factors are accounted for by the models that aggregate the polls. it's not outdated, it's literally part of the field of statistics. it's like saying we should give up modelling the weather because we get it wrong all the time and it's too complex.
If you trust a single poll obviously it makes no sense but given enough data and tuning trusting the prediction of an aggregator is more rational than anything else you could trust in.
unless you're talking about not trusting individual polls ...
|
Do polls take voter turnout into account? Like can you answer with "I don't plan to go out and vote"?
I think that's the reason for all Brexit polls being wrong but I didn't really look into it.
|
On November 04 2016 16:48 Laurens wrote:
Do polls take voter turnout into account? Like can you answer with "I don't plan to go out and vote"?
I think that's the reason for all Brexit polls being wrong but I didn't really look into it.
Good question. This is exactly why the polls here in Croatia for our last parliamentary elections were dead wrong on predicting who is going to win by a very large margin.
|
On November 04 2016 16:48 Laurens wrote:
Do polls take voter turnout into account? Like can you answer with "I don't plan to go out and vote"?
I think that's the reason for all Brexit polls being wrong but I didn't really look into it.
Yes, pretty much all the poll numbers you've ever seen anywhere show only the opinions of likely voters. Though that's not determined only by asking people if they plan to vote, there's always significantly more people saying they will vote/have voted than the actual turnout.
Not to be rude, but we're talking about a field with decades of development and you think they somehow missed a thing that is obvious to any layman?
|
On November 04 2016 16:43 Blisse wrote:
I'm sorry but do you not believe in math lol
all of those factors are accounted for by the models that aggregate the polls. it's not outdated, it's literally part of the field of statistics. it's like saying we should give up modelling the weather because we get it wrong all the time and it's too complex.
If you trust a single poll obviously it makes no sense but given enough data and tuning trusting the prediction of an aggregator is more rational than anything else you could trust in.
unless you're talking about not trusting individual polls ...
When the polls used to "math" have intrinsic flaws, then it doesn't matter how scientific the statistic model is. The base assumptions are wrong, and as such, whatever answer is given at the end is also wrong. We only need to look back at the last 8 years of results and how far outside the MoE polling was. If you don't want to take it from me then there are numerous pollsters who are saying the same things. I wouldn't be surprised if either candidate won in a landslide (+-75 in the e. college).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
