|
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 December 13 2017 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 10:41 Plansix wrote:
Moore carries white people. Black people vote for the guy who didn't say America was great when it had slavery. The story is that Moore won 74% of white women without college education and 54% of ww with one. Despite him thinking the country was better when they couldn't vote.
In inbred rural America, all that matters is preserving tribal cohesion, continuity and never moving an inch away from what already was.
Also keep in mind how many women feel deeply obligated to vote the same as their husbands in these hyper patriarchal areas.
|
NYT estimate says Jones' got the edge so far
(why the fuck am I awake for this seriously)
|
On December 13 2017 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:The story is that Moore won 74% of white women without college education and 54% of ww with one. Despite him thinking the country was better when they couldn't vote. In inbred rural America, all that matters is preserving tribal cohesion, continuity and never moving an inch away from what already was. Also keep in mind how many women feel deeply obligated to vote the same as their husbands in these hyper patriarchal areas.
I don't know how people could look at that and not think we need to send a federal level response down there to do welfare checks on women and children.
|
On December 13 2017 11:19 Nebuchad wrote:
NYT estimate says Jones' got the edge so far
(why the fuck am I awake for this seriously)
Jones is going to lose, go to sleep.
|
On December 13 2017 11:19 Nebuchad wrote:
NYT estimate says Jones' got the edge so far
(why the fuck am I awake for this seriously)
There is no edge. No one is up or down. Someone already won and it was likely the racist clown that wants to fuck teenage girls for their purity.
|
On December 13 2017 11:06 GreenHorizons wrote:The story is that Moore won 74% of white women without college education and 54% of ww with one. Despite him thinking the country was better when they couldn't vote.
Well then, I expect him to graciously not count those votes towards his total.
|
Lol they have Jones at 90% chances to win now
|
The DNC (Obama’s DNC) can chalk this up as another “closer than it should have been” defeat since the lead Moore has probably isn’t going to vanish at this point.
|
On December 13 2017 11:19 Nebuchad wrote:
NYT estimate says Jones' got the edge so far
(why the fuck am I awake for this seriously)
I forget what it's called, but it's a well documented psychological phenomenon. (or a mix of some of them).
ofc there's some individual variation, so it'd take a bit more details to determine exactly why in your case.
such problems have become a bit more common in the internet age iirc.
|
Either the NYT's methodology is seeing something we aren't, or it's another "93% (or whatever it was) chance for Hillary to win" repeat because more votes will come in and flip the tables in a hour. I have heavy doubts it's the first.
|
NYT suggests that more Moore votes than Jones votes have been counted. But their margins in the uncounted votes are relatively optimistic.
Their 90 is now 70ish.
|
hard to tell what it means but. also fivethirtyeight talked about how hard it is to predict states that usually don't have competitive races.
|
On December 13 2017 11:30 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Either the NYT's methodology is seeing something we aren't, or it's another "93% (or whatever it was) chance for Hillary to win" repeat because more votes will come in and flip the tables in a hour. I have heavy doubts it's the first.
They get this result cause they think most of the places where Moore is doing well have reported a lot (except for Baldwin county) and there are still a lot of votes in places where Jones is doing well (mainly the big cities). Kind of dumb to have the estimate jump from 70 to 90 to 70 in the span of 5 minutes so that's not worth a lot. Don't think it's worth nothing either though.
|
Nate Silver weighs in on the NYT model.
The Upshot’s model shows good news for Jones, but it has also been swinging around a fair bit. A few minutes ago, they had him with a 90 percent chance of winning, but that probability is now back down to 67 percent.
I really admire what the Upshot folks are trying to do, but it’s also worth noting that building a live-updating model based on partial returns is a really hard problem. Among other things, its hard to calibrate your estimates of uncertainty based on empirical data, because (to put this in a nontechnical way) every state and every election is different. So I’d keep a watchful eye on the Upshot’s dials to get an overall sense of how things are trending, but I wouldn’t take the probabilities too literally, at least until later in the night.
|
Our model predicts the outcome of an election with closed ballets. This is a waste of Human Resources and time, since more accurately results can be obtained by waiting for the real count to come in.
I liked Nate Silver right up until everyone started making this stupid shit that is pretty useless.
|
It is clear at this point that a lot of the heavily R counties are suffering reduced turnout vs Moore's past race in 2014, and that isn't panning out for the Dem ones thus far. I think the NYT methodology probably overemphasizes this, but it does give Jones an edge that wouldn't have been built into a lot of the polling that showed a 3-5 point Moore lead.
|
Do what I do on most election nights : play a game that takes a couple hours and then be pleasantly amused at all the hullabaloo after you've finished
|
On December 13 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
Our model predicts the outcome of an election with closed ballets. This is a waste of Human Resources and time, since more accurately results can be obtained by waiting for the real count to come in.
Well obviously it's 50-50, either Moore wins or Jones does!
|
On December 13 2017 11:39 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
Our model predicts the outcome of an election with closed ballets. This is a waste of Human Resources and time, since more accurately results can be obtained by waiting for the real count to come in. Well obviously it's 50-50, either Moore wins or Jones does!
Someone already won! Predictions no longer matter!!!!
|
On December 13 2017 11:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 11:39 jalstar wrote:On December 13 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
Our model predicts the outcome of an election with closed ballets. This is a waste of Human Resources and time, since more accurately results can be obtained by waiting for the real count to come in. Well obviously it's 50-50, either Moore wins or Jones does! Someone already won! Predictions no longer matter!!!!
It's a level of confidence, not a probability. Pretty basic statistics, there's no need to be obtuse here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
