EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5947
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On November 07 2016 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote: Think these last minute events show that the public polling is not what they are seeing in their internals. Maybe I'm missing something, but is it odd that the new NBC poll asked 50% Obama voters and 35% Romney voters in their new poll? There's an important distinction here that you're missing, which is that Obama voters and Romney voters is not the same as people that say they voted Obama and people that say they voted Romney. It's well documented that in post-election polls a far larger percentage of people say they have voted for the victor than the margin with which he won. If Trump loses this election with something like 45% of the popular vote, you'd be lucky to get 30% in 2020 to say they have voted for him. There's also no reason to assume that they used any of that as is, you never really get a sample that is proportional with demographic breakdown for all of the questions, so you weight them to correct for that. e: forgot to mention, this is actually believed to be the main reason why LA Times is the biggest outlier of all polls, they weight people based on who they say they voted for in 2012 with the same proportion of the actual result. They're aware this might cause trouble http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-poll-faq-20161006-snap-story.html What else gets factored into the weighting? We ask people if they voted in 2012 and, if so, whom they voted for. We adjust the sample to match that, so 25% are people who say they voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, 27% are people who say they voted for Obama and 48% either did not vote or were too young to vote last time. Using 2012 votes as a weighting factor is designed to get the right partisan balance in the sample and to ensure that we’re also polling people who did not vote last time, a group that can get left out of some other surveys. Can weighting lead to errors? Sometimes. For example, we know that after an election, some people say they voted for the winner even if they didn’t. That creates a risk when we weight the sample to reflect how people say they voted. Out of our sample of about 3,200 people, 27%, or approximately 810, should be voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012. If some people who voted for Romney or who didn’t actually take part in the election claim to have voted for Obama, some of those 810 people might not really be Democratic voters. On the other hand, not weighting at all can also skew a sample. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
Will it be an epic and ground shaking election,or will evetything fizzle out and Hillary wins with a big margin. Nate adjusting his polls and weighing them,that is just ridiculous tbh. He says he has empirical evidence but he has only 1 other sample I think which is the previous election. You cant adjust the polls based on a bias in just 1 election,for all we know that could have been an outlier. It also is 4 years ago and things chance. Even if it was 2 or 3 elections,it still would not be justified to weigh the polling numbers imo. If you can not trust what the polls say (which is the only logical conclusion based on his adjustment) then they are kinda useless regardless what you do with them? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And nothing, as expected. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23220 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:32 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/samsanders/status/795361171800989696 And nothing, as expected. Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Except election tampering. Though his announcement has nothing to do with the Foundation investigation, neither did his original letter. He has some explaining to do. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
One of our friends used to work for the CIA as an annalist and pointed out that "classified" is the lowest level of security and nothing of significant value would ever be given that low of a classification. And that the chances of a top secret or high level information ever being sent out via email is so low that is barely a concern for the CIA. They don't email the lists of active CIA assets to the state department. That document is brought over by hand. It is all so dumb. On November 07 2016 05:42 xDaunt wrote: Though his announcement has nothing to do with the Foundation investigation, neither did his original letter. He has some explaining to do. The one that was leaked and has not gone anyplace due to lack of evidence? Because all the reports from news outlets have been that every decision maker in the Justice dept and FBI shot that investigation down. Clinton Cash is a work is fiction. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I wouldn't exactly say "nothing", could be more "accidents", just that they don't change their mind that they were accidents. Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
He can't handle having access to his own twitter account. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9646 Posts
He's on;y doing it for the reputation, and that's all he would get. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42642 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:52 On_Slaught wrote: What happened to the argument that the FBI director wouldn't mention anything if he had nothing? Guys job is (rightfully) in jeopardy. He was always going to get fucked from both sides because both see the middle ground as an enemy. This is why Lynch said that she wasn't gonna get involved at all, it's a thankless job. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:52 On_Slaught wrote: What happened to the argument that the FBI director wouldn't mention anything if he had nothing? Guys job is (rightfully) in jeopardy. Tge argument still stands beacuse it's been widely agreed that he did it for transparency expecially after the time before he talked about the investigation clearing clinton. And if I were him I wouldn't want to be having the job anyway anymore. He got put in a corner and he cant be happy effecting the election like this. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23220 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:45 JW_DTLA wrote: Is there any amount of vindications and clearings of wrongdoing that would cause you to mark your biases to market? FBI just cleared HRC again. Yet you hold out for more unknown, undiscovered evidence of the criminality you so wish for. Why not just come out and say you have pre-judged HRC and don't need evidence? I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Trolling for Trump: how Russia is trying to destroy our democracy In spring 2014, a funny story crossed our social media feeds. A petition on whitehouse.gov called for “sending Alaska back to Russia,” and it quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. The media ran a number of amused stories on the event, and it was quickly forgotten. The petition seemed odd to us, and so we looked at which accounts were promoting it on social media. We discovered that thousands of Russian-language bots had been repetitively tweeting links to the petition for weeks before it caught journalists’ attention. Those were the days. Now, instead of pranking petitions, Russian influence networks online are interfering with the 2016 U.S. election. Many people, especially Hillary Clinton supporters, believe that Russia is actively trying to put Donald Trump in the White House. [...] But most observers are missing the point. Russia is helping Trump’s campaign, yes, but it is not doing so solely or even necessarily with the goal of placing him in the Oval Office. Rather, these efforts seek to produce a divided electorate and a president with no clear mandate to govern. The ultimate objective is to diminish and tarnish American democracy. Unfortunately, that effort is going very well indeed. Russia’s desire to sow distrust in the American system of government is not new. It’s a goal Moscow has pursued since the beginning of the Cold War. Its strategy is not new, either. Soviet-era “active measures” called for using the “force of politics” rather than the “politics of force” to erode American democracy from within. What is new is the methods Russia uses to achieve these objectives. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:42 Plansix wrote: One of our friends used to work for the CIA as an annalist and pointed out that "classified" is the lowest level of security and nothing of significant value would ever be given that low of a classification. And that the chances of a top secret or high level information ever being sent out via email is so low that is barely a concern for the CIA. They don't email the lists of active CIA assets to the state department. That document is brought over by hand. Security clearance summary for y'all: I'm going to talk about Department of Energy (mostly nuclear matters) and Department of Defense (a lot of stuff) security clearances. Department of Energy has two levels that are worth noting: Q Clearance (the higher level one) and L Clearance. Read the wiki pieces if you care. A lot of technical details here. Department of Defense has, from highest to lowest, Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. Vaguely, these are classifications by how damaging it would be for that information to be leaked to the public or to foreign agents. Generally this information is kept on a need-to-know basis on top of being restricted by clearance. There are more data security levels that are not explicitly denoted by clearance level; see below. In addition, there are special access programs that have further clearance requirements beyond Top Secret for particularly sensitive matters. Confidential documents aren't great if leaked, but it wouldn't be a national tragedy. Obviously it's pretty much a spectrum; the higher the classification the worse the leak. To give some perspective, people who do decent government work (e.g. workers on military contracts) generally have a Secret clearance, while intelligence workers (e.g. every employee of the FBI) have Top Secret clearance. Read more: wiki | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
On November 07 2016 04:12 Nebuchad wrote: In terms of actual results, they predict the same winner on every state but NC and Florida (something weird with Ohio according to what you say here as they have Trump winning in numbers but they have 57% confidence of Clinton winning?). What you're going to be able to measure on election day is the actual results, not the confidence in the results. It stands to reason that you would compare those numbers rather than the confidence that they put in them. It already accounts for the large difference in predicted chances of winning, cause Trump has absolutely no chance of winning without NC and Florida, that 1,6% seems optimistic. I'd be making the same case if I was against someone else... Sometimes people just think you're wrong, you know. It's three, you forgot Nevada. As for Ohio, it has shifted as a 71% chances for Trump since I posted in the HP model. As I said the whole thing is extremely volatile and that's why I posted insisting that it was "right now". Maybe in two days it happens that the two models disagree more than they do now, or less. Models predict in terms of confidence in a given result. We say that they perform well when the odds they give is in line with reality. | ||
| ||
