| 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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:08 Plansix wrote: That looks to be within the standard margin of error. 3% is really close in an district held by Republicans for decades. That's an 8.6% swing -- definitely not within the margin of error. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The CBO score from the House bill. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752 The Senate bill appears to be similar is most ways. On June 22 2017 09:34 xDaunt wrote: That's an 8.6% swing -- definitely not within the margin of error. Sorry, I miss read the graph. Most of the polls I saw were neck and neck fight up until the end and I saw 3.8%. She won on turn out alone, which is how elections work. Also, averaging polls is terrible and real clear polices should not do it. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:34 Plansix wrote: The CBO score from the House bill. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752 The Senate bill appears to be similar is most ways. Sorry, I miss read the graph. Most of the polls I saw were neck and neck fight up until the end and I saw 3.8%. She won on turn out alone, which is how elections work. Also, averaging polls is terrible and real clear polices should not do it. That's all RCP does. If they didn't average polls they wouldn't be a website. And averaging polls really is more accurate, though I prefer 538's method of having weights to specific polls based on past performance. 538 didn't issue an official prediction on the Georgia race other than "it will be close", though. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:44 Nevuk wrote: That's all RCP does. If they didn't average polls they wouldn't be a website. And averaging polls really is more accurate, though I prefer 538's method of having weights to specific polls based on past performance. 538 didn't issue an official prediction on the Georgia race other than "it will be close", though. 538 at least posts words next to their polls, explaining how they got there and what it means. They run a site that primarily is about articles about polls. RCP is like "Fuck all that shit, here is the average of poll numbers that may or may not be polling different sets of people. Its all on one page for you too, good luck!" | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:34 Plansix wrote: The CBO score from the House bill. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752 The Senate bill appears to be similar is most ways. That's the score for the bill I denounced earlier as a "fake repeal"? Looking through the full report, it seems like they're counting 8 million people who have the option to keep their insurance but choose not to. It's completely backwards to blame the bill, rather than those people, for them being uninsured, and it's certainly not "leaving them uninsured indefinitely". I don't like some other things about their methodology*, but that's the biggest mistake I can see. *for example, I suspect their baseline scenario counts some people as "losing insurance" that do not currently have insurance, although the report has very few details about that baseline. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:47 Buckyman wrote: That's the score for the bill I denounced earlier as a "fake repeal"? Looking through the full report, it seems like they're counting 8 million people who have the option to keep their insurance but choose not to. It's completely backwards to blame the bill, rather than those people, for them being uninsured, and it's certainly not "leaving them uninsured indefinitely". I don't like some other things about their methodology, but that's the biggest mistake I can see. You wanted the citation for the number, that is the where it comes from. If you don't like their methodology, I am sure you can send them an email or something. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:52 Buckyman wrote: My point is, don't blame the Democrats for all 20 million. Ah, I understand. GH doesn't blame Republicans for things, only Democrats. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:17 Plansix wrote: I am not convinced of that. She won with 2/3s of the sitting house members in February. One third of House democrats wanted new leadership and it is a straight majority to get it. But it will take other leaders pushing for her to step down. In other news: Apparently there are three staffers for the GOP leadership writing the ACAH and the rest of Senators are just for show. If Lee and Cruz are out of the process. So much for conservative input. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/MichaelCBender/status/877659202298105856 whoa there | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 22 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote: If Lee and Cruz are out of the process. So much for conservative input. Lee and Cruz are not the most reasonable senators and I am sure they would poison pill it rather than compromise. But that is the process. They should have just held public hearings and let the bill be murdered by public opinion like the forefathers intended. I hope everyone looks forward to paying for their parents heathcare and seeing none of the tax benefits from that. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If that isn't a well written and cited letter, I don't know what is. They make it clear that Trump is only interested in a photo opportunity. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On June 22 2017 10:53 Buckyman wrote: If it stops Medicaid from eating the health-care sector or the ACA repeal stops the health-care sector from eating the economy, I'm fine with that. Nothing is going to stop the healthcare sector from eating the economy when we have an aging population. It's already large enough that if this isn't carefully managed there's a very real risk of a recession | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On June 22 2017 11:04 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/877607726599118848 If that isn't a well written and cited letter, I don't know what is. They make it clear that Trump is only interested in a photo opportunity. that was a good read. At best the administration is unable to operate effectively (understaffed, poorly staffed) and fulfill the needs of diplomacy and at worst, this lack of total response was a direct snub to the CBC. Not a good look but I'm sure a story like this will only echo with those already very pro-trump or very anti-trump. This isn't a big deal to most Americans I imagine. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 22 2017 13:27 Nebuchad wrote: Trump is so effective he is retroactively effective. It's probably how he built the Panama Canal. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
