|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Seems like a whole lot of effort to rig a poll result everyone will forget about in a couple day.
|
On May 08 2019 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 11:32 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 10:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 09:57 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 08:27 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, after googling for a moment I’m realizing your methodological complaint about the CNN poll might not even be sound. Can you explain what exactly you think was wrong with that CNN poll, and what you think its significance is? Nothing is "wrong" with the poll, it just didn't have a statistically significant sample of the ages where Bernie performs much better than he does with voters over 50. Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally. For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on. On May 08 2019 08:28 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
Things look a lot closer when you take superdelegates out of the picture. It basically cuts her margin of victory in half. Ron Paul got crushed, Jeb Bush got crushed, Hillary hung on to what should have been an easy win losing several states in the process. At least that's my perspective. Notably, her political career is over and Bernie's is reaching a peak Okay, so they didn’t sample enough young people to draw statistically significant conclusions worth reporting about the subgroup. What is it you are concluding from that fact? And why do you believe Nate Silver was irresponsible in his analysis for not mentioning this? I already explained? Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally.
For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on.
He knows this and how important it is to the value of the conclusions of the poll and fails to mention it. So let’s start from the beginning here. CNN does a tracking poll, just like every other time they do a tracking poll, and calls random respondents asking a bunch of questions. When they’re done, they tabulate all the results and report them. They don’t, however, report results for subgroups if they didn’t happen to get enough respondents from that subgroup. In this case, “18-35” or w/e didn’t clear that threshold. Am I supposed to think the numbers are off because of this? That they’re overestimating Biden’s support in this poll? That the noise is higher than usual? What is becoming more pronounced in the final tally? That depending on what the responses were, and how they are weighted, what the poll is reflecting may be more or less accurate of reality. That there is "more noise" would be fair way to put it if one were arguing in favor that it's an accurate reflection of the headlines it got. Nate Silver is the person who is supposed to bring that to his consumers attention (I don't expect this minutia from typical corporate punditry). The CNN poll thing is typical and will sort itself out after Biden gets some quick fundraising out of it, Nate Silver is on my shitlist for the far less defensible (than leaving out this information) tiers he put out there in early April for clicks (along with some other stuff that's less relevant atm). But this was exactly my point to start with, then. You’re giving Nate shit for presenting this as one of a bunch of polls showing good numbers for Biden post-announcement. You want him to put an asterisk saying they had a low response rate for young demographics that they offset with demographic weighting. But there isn’t actually anything wrong with that methodology, nor is there particular reason to think that poll was an outlier. Putting asterisks about methodology when there’s a result you don’t like is exactly the kind of subtle confirmation bias I was talking about. It would be less responsible reporting for him to say “CNN’s poll said this, but maybe don’t trust that because they got a pretty low response from young voters” than to just report the result, because nothing you’ve brought up about methodology is actually a reason to distrust the result. Your point is one I considered from the beginning. Which is why I pointed out that's not really why he's on my shitlist, while I disagree with your particular take on the polling he did enough to cover that it's probably going to go away very soon so really the only impact was a bunch of misleading headlines (with less aware analysis than nate provided) and probably a good fundraising week, but it's not the basis of my distrust of Nate. Also that I hold Nate to a higher standard than to simply say that the math checks out when the polls all seem to reflect the same thing because of the same problem rather than despite it, for which he gets credit for pointing out it's other likely inflationary factors. Then you considered my point from the beginning, but still thought it was good analysis to dismiss Biden’s lead by pointing out obscure methodological details in one of the many polls showing that lead. If you were gonna make an argument like “I think the polls are underestimating Bernie’s support because many polling methods still only call people with landlines and Bernie’s supporters are less likely than other members of their demographics to not have a landline,” then there’d be something to talk about. It’d be silly to expect pundits to put an asterisk next to every poll result saying “maybe don’t trust this though, landline polling is flawed,” but it’s a valid criticism at least. This is where we get to the point that polling isn’t a perfect way of knowing public opinion, just less bad than any other method I know of. That's not what I did. Show nested quote +I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months.
Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. As I've alluded to before though, the real use of these early polls is to tier candidates which where Nate is concerned are coming with increasingly direct "this is bs" disclaimers knowing the people clicking will ignore the "this is bs" part.
So the hypothesis is that hidden beneath the polling bounce is a hidden plummet in his numbers with younger voters, and the evidence is... that Biden is unpopular in the TL USPMT? Putting aside the whole “plural of anecdote is not data” thing, is there even a sign Biden’s support is dropping on TL? Seems like it was already low.
I haven’t heard Nate’s exact argument for ranking Kamala above Bernie, but I expect it’s something along the lines of “Kamala’s polling pretty okay considering low name recognition, whereas Bernie’s polling isn’t great considering his name recognition is ~100%.” I don’t know if I buy that argument, but I find it a hell of a lot more compelling than “Biden’s definitely losing support, you don’t see it in polls but you can tell because the USPMT doesn’t like him.”
This is part of why I hate horse race coverage. I don’t especially want to argue this point with you; you and I probably agree on many of the fundamentals, like “People are probably supporting Biden for mostly bad reasons” or “Democrats who don’t like that Bernie doesn’t call himself a ‘Democrat’ are badly missing the point.” We probably disagree on other fundamentals, like “if Biden wins the nomination Democrats should still vote for him” or “a Democrat beating Trump in 2020 is more important than which Democrat that is.” But we’re not discussing issues; we’re not even discussing strategy. We’re just discussing who is or isn’t ahead and by how much. I might think your statistical analysis is flawed, but so what? If “falls prey to some insidious statistical pitfalls that nearly everyone falls prey to” is the worst of your flaws, you’re a saint.
Of course, I’m the one that brought it up so I have no one but myself to blame.
@quetzacoatl122: if your claim is “CNN rigged the poll,” provide evidence for a pretty extraordinary claim. I see no evidence or motive, and find it hard to believe they’d do such a bad job of it if that was the plan. Why not just make up numbers if you’re gonna rig it? Why report “N/A” for the demographic instead of just making up some plausible number and printing it?
|
On May 08 2019 13:16 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:32 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 10:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 09:57 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Nothing is "wrong" with the poll, it just didn't have a statistically significant sample of the ages where Bernie performs much better than he does with voters over 50.
Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally.
For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on.
[quote]
Ron Paul got crushed, Jeb Bush got crushed, Hillary hung on to what should have been an easy win losing several states in the process. At least that's my perspective. Notably, her political career is over and Bernie's is reaching a peak Okay, so they didn’t sample enough young people to draw statistically significant conclusions worth reporting about the subgroup. What is it you are concluding from that fact? And why do you believe Nate Silver was irresponsible in his analysis for not mentioning this? I already explained? Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally.
For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on.
He knows this and how important it is to the value of the conclusions of the poll and fails to mention it. So let’s start from the beginning here. CNN does a tracking poll, just like every other time they do a tracking poll, and calls random respondents asking a bunch of questions. When they’re done, they tabulate all the results and report them. They don’t, however, report results for subgroups if they didn’t happen to get enough respondents from that subgroup. In this case, “18-35” or w/e didn’t clear that threshold. Am I supposed to think the numbers are off because of this? That they’re overestimating Biden’s support in this poll? That the noise is higher than usual? What is becoming more pronounced in the final tally? That depending on what the responses were, and how they are weighted, what the poll is reflecting may be more or less accurate of reality. That there is "more noise" would be fair way to put it if one were arguing in favor that it's an accurate reflection of the headlines it got. Nate Silver is the person who is supposed to bring that to his consumers attention (I don't expect this minutia from typical corporate punditry). The CNN poll thing is typical and will sort itself out after Biden gets some quick fundraising out of it, Nate Silver is on my shitlist for the far less defensible (than leaving out this information) tiers he put out there in early April for clicks (along with some other stuff that's less relevant atm). But this was exactly my point to start with, then. You’re giving Nate shit for presenting this as one of a bunch of polls showing good numbers for Biden post-announcement. You want him to put an asterisk saying they had a low response rate for young demographics that they offset with demographic weighting. But there isn’t actually anything wrong with that methodology, nor is there particular reason to think that poll was an outlier. Putting asterisks about methodology when there’s a result you don’t like is exactly the kind of subtle confirmation bias I was talking about. It would be less responsible reporting for him to say “CNN’s poll said this, but maybe don’t trust that because they got a pretty low response from young voters” than to just report the result, because nothing you’ve brought up about methodology is actually a reason to distrust the result. Your point is one I considered from the beginning. Which is why I pointed out that's not really why he's on my shitlist, while I disagree with your particular take on the polling he did enough to cover that it's probably going to go away very soon so really the only impact was a bunch of misleading headlines (with less aware analysis than nate provided) and probably a good fundraising week, but it's not the basis of my distrust of Nate. Also that I hold Nate to a higher standard than to simply say that the math checks out when the polls all seem to reflect the same thing because of the same problem rather than despite it, for which he gets credit for pointing out it's other likely inflationary factors. Then you considered my point from the beginning, but still thought it was good analysis to dismiss Biden’s lead by pointing out obscure methodological details in one of the many polls showing that lead. If you were gonna make an argument like “I think the polls are underestimating Bernie’s support because many polling methods still only call people with landlines and Bernie’s supporters are less likely than other members of their demographics to not have a landline,” then there’d be something to talk about. It’d be silly to expect pundits to put an asterisk next to every poll result saying “maybe don’t trust this though, landline polling is flawed,” but it’s a valid criticism at least. This is where we get to the point that polling isn’t a perfect way of knowing public opinion, just less bad than any other method I know of. That's not what I did. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months.
Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. As I've alluded to before though, the real use of these early polls is to tier candidates which where Nate is concerned are coming with increasingly direct "this is bs" disclaimers knowing the people clicking will ignore the "this is bs" part. So the hypothesis is that hidden beneath the polling bounce is a hidden plummet in his numbers with younger voters, and the evidence is... that Biden is unpopular in the TL USPMT? Putting aside the whole “plural of anecdote is not data” thing, is there even a sign Biden’s support is dropping on TL? Seems like it was already low. I haven’t heard Nate’s exact argument for ranking Kamala above Bernie, but I expect it’s something along the lines of “Kamala’s polling pretty okay considering low name recognition, whereas Bernie’s polling isn’t great considering his name recognition is ~100%.” I don’t know if I buy that argument, but I find it a hell of a lot more compelling than “Biden’s definitely losing support, you don’t see it in polls but you can tell because the USPMT doesn’t like him.” This is part of why I hate horse race coverage. I don’t especially want to argue this point with you; you and I probably agree on many of the fundamentals, like “People are probably supporting Biden for mostly bad reasons” or “Democrats who don’t like that Bernie doesn’t call himself a ‘Democrat’ are badly missing the point.” We probably disagree on other fundamentals, like “if Biden wins the nomination Democrats should still vote for him” or “a Democrat beating Trump in 2020 is more important than which Democrat that is.” But we’re not discussing issues; we’re not even discussing strategy. We’re just discussing who is or isn’t ahead and by how much. I might think your statistical analysis is flawed, but so what? If “falls prey to some insidious statistical pitfalls that nearly everyone falls prey to” is the worst of your flaws, you’re a saint. Of course, I’m the one that brought it up so I have no one but myself to blame. @quetzacoatl122: if your claim is “CNN rigged the poll,” provide evidence for a pretty extraordinary claim. I see no evidence or motive, and find it hard to believe they’d do such a bad job of it if that was the plan. Why not just make up numbers if you’re gonna rig it? Why report “N/A” for the demographic instead of just making up some plausible number and printing it?
tbf the horse race gets more traction than the issues. I've tried to raise the major issue (that Joe Biden is also unacceptable because it will result in an unacceptable amount of irreversible climate change that threatens humanity as a species).
This, the pettiest of all points on polling, has drawn the most attention of all recently. Because people don't want to discuss the real problems we face or how spaces like this will have to come up with and implement the solutions because our political system is leading us toward our own extinction. The one thing we can all be most sure of, it's that I'd much rather be discussing the serious issues and potential solutions than Barr, Trump, or the horserace.
"Barr and Trump are serious issues!"
Yeah, but the problem now was the problem from the start, the Senate won't hold them accountable so they won't be held accountable, effectively demonstrating the system can't hold the president accountable if he has adequate political support.
|
On May 08 2019 08:51 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 08:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Compare this fact to Trump's public persona, and you can see that Trump is a fraud through and through. We probably should have a sitting special counsel for the duration of Trump's time in office, monitoring everything he does and says. Otherwise, he can't be trusted.
Beat me to it. Few things. 1. Trump is nothing if not a con-man. His most impressive con has been convincing millions of people that he is some elite, genius businessman. I wont deny that he is a good con-man. 2. Based on what is known I think a legitimate argument could be made that Trump is actually the worst businessman in America. This will likely become more obvious when (not if) his tax returns are torn into. Between NY state going after them and the House's request (Mnuchin is going to get crushed in court), they will be known soon enough. 3. Where was all this shit back in 2016, NYT? So many stories in the last 2 years about someone who is a bad businessman, and worse person, but all too late to stop the trainwreck.
I am really intrigued by Trump's finances. Has he basically just taken and spent money from people based on his father's reputation? Then did he go bankrupt with all that money? And then inherit his father's money worth half a billion in today's dollars? and not pay taxes on it?
The secret to being a great businessman may be to borrow and spend a lot of money, declare bankruptcy, inherit money, and not pay taxes (because you spent all your borrowed money).
|
On May 08 2019 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:16 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:32 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 10:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 09:57 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so they didn’t sample enough young people to draw statistically significant conclusions worth reporting about the subgroup. What is it you are concluding from that fact? And why do you believe Nate Silver was irresponsible in his analysis for not mentioning this? I already explained? Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally.
For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on.
He knows this and how important it is to the value of the conclusions of the poll and fails to mention it. So let’s start from the beginning here. CNN does a tracking poll, just like every other time they do a tracking poll, and calls random respondents asking a bunch of questions. When they’re done, they tabulate all the results and report them. They don’t, however, report results for subgroups if they didn’t happen to get enough respondents from that subgroup. In this case, “18-35” or w/e didn’t clear that threshold. Am I supposed to think the numbers are off because of this? That they’re overestimating Biden’s support in this poll? That the noise is higher than usual? What is becoming more pronounced in the final tally? That depending on what the responses were, and how they are weighted, what the poll is reflecting may be more or less accurate of reality. That there is "more noise" would be fair way to put it if one were arguing in favor that it's an accurate reflection of the headlines it got. Nate Silver is the person who is supposed to bring that to his consumers attention (I don't expect this minutia from typical corporate punditry). The CNN poll thing is typical and will sort itself out after Biden gets some quick fundraising out of it, Nate Silver is on my shitlist for the far less defensible (than leaving out this information) tiers he put out there in early April for clicks (along with some other stuff that's less relevant atm). But this was exactly my point to start with, then. You’re giving Nate shit for presenting this as one of a bunch of polls showing good numbers for Biden post-announcement. You want him to put an asterisk saying they had a low response rate for young demographics that they offset with demographic weighting. But there isn’t actually anything wrong with that methodology, nor is there particular reason to think that poll was an outlier. Putting asterisks about methodology when there’s a result you don’t like is exactly the kind of subtle confirmation bias I was talking about. It would be less responsible reporting for him to say “CNN’s poll said this, but maybe don’t trust that because they got a pretty low response from young voters” than to just report the result, because nothing you’ve brought up about methodology is actually a reason to distrust the result. Your point is one I considered from the beginning. Which is why I pointed out that's not really why he's on my shitlist, while I disagree with your particular take on the polling he did enough to cover that it's probably going to go away very soon so really the only impact was a bunch of misleading headlines (with less aware analysis than nate provided) and probably a good fundraising week, but it's not the basis of my distrust of Nate. Also that I hold Nate to a higher standard than to simply say that the math checks out when the polls all seem to reflect the same thing because of the same problem rather than despite it, for which he gets credit for pointing out it's other likely inflationary factors. Then you considered my point from the beginning, but still thought it was good analysis to dismiss Biden’s lead by pointing out obscure methodological details in one of the many polls showing that lead. If you were gonna make an argument like “I think the polls are underestimating Bernie’s support because many polling methods still only call people with landlines and Bernie’s supporters are less likely than other members of their demographics to not have a landline,” then there’d be something to talk about. It’d be silly to expect pundits to put an asterisk next to every poll result saying “maybe don’t trust this though, landline polling is flawed,” but it’s a valid criticism at least. This is where we get to the point that polling isn’t a perfect way of knowing public opinion, just less bad than any other method I know of. That's not what I did. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months.
Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. As I've alluded to before though, the real use of these early polls is to tier candidates which where Nate is concerned are coming with increasingly direct "this is bs" disclaimers knowing the people clicking will ignore the "this is bs" part. So the hypothesis is that hidden beneath the polling bounce is a hidden plummet in his numbers with younger voters, and the evidence is... that Biden is unpopular in the TL USPMT? Putting aside the whole “plural of anecdote is not data” thing, is there even a sign Biden’s support is dropping on TL? Seems like it was already low. I haven’t heard Nate’s exact argument for ranking Kamala above Bernie, but I expect it’s something along the lines of “Kamala’s polling pretty okay considering low name recognition, whereas Bernie’s polling isn’t great considering his name recognition is ~100%.” I don’t know if I buy that argument, but I find it a hell of a lot more compelling than “Biden’s definitely losing support, you don’t see it in polls but you can tell because the USPMT doesn’t like him.” This is part of why I hate horse race coverage. I don’t especially want to argue this point with you; you and I probably agree on many of the fundamentals, like “People are probably supporting Biden for mostly bad reasons” or “Democrats who don’t like that Bernie doesn’t call himself a ‘Democrat’ are badly missing the point.” We probably disagree on other fundamentals, like “if Biden wins the nomination Democrats should still vote for him” or “a Democrat beating Trump in 2020 is more important than which Democrat that is.” But we’re not discussing issues; we’re not even discussing strategy. We’re just discussing who is or isn’t ahead and by how much. I might think your statistical analysis is flawed, but so what? If “falls prey to some insidious statistical pitfalls that nearly everyone falls prey to” is the worst of your flaws, you’re a saint. Of course, I’m the one that brought it up so I have no one but myself to blame. @quetzacoatl122: if your claim is “CNN rigged the poll,” provide evidence for a pretty extraordinary claim. I see no evidence or motive, and find it hard to believe they’d do such a bad job of it if that was the plan. Why not just make up numbers if you’re gonna rig it? Why report “N/A” for the demographic instead of just making up some plausible number and printing it? tbf the horse race gets more traction than the issues. I've tried to raise the major issue (that Joe Biden is also unacceptable because it will result in an unacceptable amount of irreversible climate change that threatens humanity as a species). This, the pettiest of all points on polling, has drawn the most attention of all recently. Because people don't want to discuss the real problems we face or how spaces like this will have to come up with and implement the solutions because our political system is leading us toward our own extinction. The one thing we can all be most sure of, it's that I'd much rather be discussing the serious issues and potential solutions than Barr, Trump, or the horserace. "Barr and Trump are serious issues!" Yeah, but the problem now was the problem from the start, the Senate won't hold them accountable so they won't be held accountable, effectively demonstrating the system can't hold the president accountable if he has adequate political support.
Yeah, I’d never accuse you of unwillingness to discuss important issues. I don’t know what exactly determines whether people engage with a given topic, and I’m sure it varies by poster, but I suspect that for many (myself included), it’s determined a little by how important the subject is, a little more by how interested they are in the subject, but mostly by how confident they are in the opinion they would post on the subject. I think it’s a natural impulse to speak up when you’re sure of something, and stay quiet/listen when you’re not, but it has a lot of negative side effects. One is that the conversation gets focused on weirdly specific details, and another is that it becomes very vulnerable to trolling - any idiot can wander in, say something contradicting a belief everyone is very certain of, and watch everybody light up their keyboards climbing over each other to explain why they’re wrong.
But maybe the worst side effect is that complex, multi-faceted issues don’t get much traction because they’re hard questions and people aren’t very certain what the right answer is. If somebody posts a wall of text arguing for stricter immigration laws because the US should only care about helping US citizens, even if that means fucking over non-Americans including those living here without citizenship, I’ll read it and think “that’s not right.” I might think some about how to articulate why, maybe even type up a draft response. But I don’t have a good answer to what the “right” immigration policy is, and many of my opinions would be tentative. There’s a good chance I’d close the tab without ever posting.
On the other hand, if somebody posts “ban immigrants, they commit too many crimes,” I’m much more likely to respond pointing out that immigrants actually commit less crimes per capita than citizens. I’m more confident in that statement, so I’m more likely to post it, but is that really better for the thread? Between those two opinions, isn’t the first really more dark and fucked up and deserving of opposition than the second?
|
On May 08 2019 14:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 13:16 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:32 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 11:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 10:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I already explained?
[quote]
He knows this and how important it is to the value of the conclusions of the poll and fails to mention it. So let’s start from the beginning here. CNN does a tracking poll, just like every other time they do a tracking poll, and calls random respondents asking a bunch of questions. When they’re done, they tabulate all the results and report them. They don’t, however, report results for subgroups if they didn’t happen to get enough respondents from that subgroup. In this case, “18-35” or w/e didn’t clear that threshold. Am I supposed to think the numbers are off because of this? That they’re overestimating Biden’s support in this poll? That the noise is higher than usual? What is becoming more pronounced in the final tally? That depending on what the responses were, and how they are weighted, what the poll is reflecting may be more or less accurate of reality. That there is "more noise" would be fair way to put it if one were arguing in favor that it's an accurate reflection of the headlines it got. Nate Silver is the person who is supposed to bring that to his consumers attention (I don't expect this minutia from typical corporate punditry). The CNN poll thing is typical and will sort itself out after Biden gets some quick fundraising out of it, Nate Silver is on my shitlist for the far less defensible (than leaving out this information) tiers he put out there in early April for clicks (along with some other stuff that's less relevant atm). But this was exactly my point to start with, then. You’re giving Nate shit for presenting this as one of a bunch of polls showing good numbers for Biden post-announcement. You want him to put an asterisk saying they had a low response rate for young demographics that they offset with demographic weighting. But there isn’t actually anything wrong with that methodology, nor is there particular reason to think that poll was an outlier. Putting asterisks about methodology when there’s a result you don’t like is exactly the kind of subtle confirmation bias I was talking about. It would be less responsible reporting for him to say “CNN’s poll said this, but maybe don’t trust that because they got a pretty low response from young voters” than to just report the result, because nothing you’ve brought up about methodology is actually a reason to distrust the result. Your point is one I considered from the beginning. Which is why I pointed out that's not really why he's on my shitlist, while I disagree with your particular take on the polling he did enough to cover that it's probably going to go away very soon so really the only impact was a bunch of misleading headlines (with less aware analysis than nate provided) and probably a good fundraising week, but it's not the basis of my distrust of Nate. Also that I hold Nate to a higher standard than to simply say that the math checks out when the polls all seem to reflect the same thing because of the same problem rather than despite it, for which he gets credit for pointing out it's other likely inflationary factors. Then you considered my point from the beginning, but still thought it was good analysis to dismiss Biden’s lead by pointing out obscure methodological details in one of the many polls showing that lead. If you were gonna make an argument like “I think the polls are underestimating Bernie’s support because many polling methods still only call people with landlines and Bernie’s supporters are less likely than other members of their demographics to not have a landline,” then there’d be something to talk about. It’d be silly to expect pundits to put an asterisk next to every poll result saying “maybe don’t trust this though, landline polling is flawed,” but it’s a valid criticism at least. This is where we get to the point that polling isn’t a perfect way of knowing public opinion, just less bad than any other method I know of. That's not what I did. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months.
Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. As I've alluded to before though, the real use of these early polls is to tier candidates which where Nate is concerned are coming with increasingly direct "this is bs" disclaimers knowing the people clicking will ignore the "this is bs" part. So the hypothesis is that hidden beneath the polling bounce is a hidden plummet in his numbers with younger voters, and the evidence is... that Biden is unpopular in the TL USPMT? Putting aside the whole “plural of anecdote is not data” thing, is there even a sign Biden’s support is dropping on TL? Seems like it was already low. I haven’t heard Nate’s exact argument for ranking Kamala above Bernie, but I expect it’s something along the lines of “Kamala’s polling pretty okay considering low name recognition, whereas Bernie’s polling isn’t great considering his name recognition is ~100%.” I don’t know if I buy that argument, but I find it a hell of a lot more compelling than “Biden’s definitely losing support, you don’t see it in polls but you can tell because the USPMT doesn’t like him.” This is part of why I hate horse race coverage. I don’t especially want to argue this point with you; you and I probably agree on many of the fundamentals, like “People are probably supporting Biden for mostly bad reasons” or “Democrats who don’t like that Bernie doesn’t call himself a ‘Democrat’ are badly missing the point.” We probably disagree on other fundamentals, like “if Biden wins the nomination Democrats should still vote for him” or “a Democrat beating Trump in 2020 is more important than which Democrat that is.” But we’re not discussing issues; we’re not even discussing strategy. We’re just discussing who is or isn’t ahead and by how much. I might think your statistical analysis is flawed, but so what? If “falls prey to some insidious statistical pitfalls that nearly everyone falls prey to” is the worst of your flaws, you’re a saint. Of course, I’m the one that brought it up so I have no one but myself to blame. @quetzacoatl122: if your claim is “CNN rigged the poll,” provide evidence for a pretty extraordinary claim. I see no evidence or motive, and find it hard to believe they’d do such a bad job of it if that was the plan. Why not just make up numbers if you’re gonna rig it? Why report “N/A” for the demographic instead of just making up some plausible number and printing it? tbf the horse race gets more traction than the issues. I've tried to raise the major issue (that Joe Biden is also unacceptable because it will result in an unacceptable amount of irreversible climate change that threatens humanity as a species). This, the pettiest of all points on polling, has drawn the most attention of all recently. Because people don't want to discuss the real problems we face or how spaces like this will have to come up with and implement the solutions because our political system is leading us toward our own extinction. The one thing we can all be most sure of, it's that I'd much rather be discussing the serious issues and potential solutions than Barr, Trump, or the horserace. "Barr and Trump are serious issues!" Yeah, but the problem now was the problem from the start, the Senate won't hold them accountable so they won't be held accountable, effectively demonstrating the system can't hold the president accountable if he has adequate political support. Yeah, I’d never accuse you of unwillingness to discuss important issues. I don’t know what exactly determines whether people engage with a given topic, and I’m sure it varies by poster, but I suspect that for many (myself included), it’s determined a little by how important the subject is, a little more by how interested they are in the subject, but mostly by how confident they are in the opinion they would post on the subject. I think it’s a natural impulse to speak up when you’re sure of something, and stay quiet/listen when you’re not, but it has a lot of negative side effects. One is that the conversation gets focused on weirdly specific details, and another is that it becomes very vulnerable to trolling - any idiot can wander in, say something contradicting a belief everyone is very certain of, and watch everybody light up their keyboards climbing over each other to explain why they’re wrong. But maybe the worst side effect is that complex, multi-faceted issues don’t get much traction because they’re hard questions and people aren’t very certain what the right answer is. If somebody posts a wall of text arguing for stricter immigration laws because the US should only care about helping US citizens, even if that means fucking over non-Americans including those living here without citizenship, I’ll read it and think “that’s not right.” I might think some about how to articulate why, maybe even type up a draft response. But I don’t have a good answer to what the “right” immigration policy is, and many of my opinions would be tentative. There’s a good chance I’d close the tab without ever posting. On the other hand, if somebody posts “ban immigrants, they commit too many crimes,” I’m much more likely to respond pointing out that immigrants actually commit less crimes per capita than citizens. I’m more confident in that statement, so I’m more likely to post it, but is that really better for the thread? Between those two opinions, isn’t the first really more dark and fucked up and deserving of opposition than the second?
I think this is a popular shortcoming for many people's worldviews and it's a lot easier to dwell on anything else than what that shortcoming really means. It means that voting isn't a viable solution and their worldview simply doesn't allow for a solution to that.
Kwark and Neb are the two people here I've seen resolve this conflict/previously unaddressed concern in their worldview.
|
|
|
On May 08 2019 09:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 08:27 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 06:31 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 05:05 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 23:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 07 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months.
Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. I hesitate to post this because I don’t like horse race coverage of elections, not least because people tend to intentionally or unintentionally use it as a cover for advocacy (e.g. instead of saying “I support Buttigieg” people say “Buttigieg sure is doing well in the polls, let’s talk about it”). So let me explicitly say I have no intention of voting for Biden in the primary. That said, I think you’re misreading the polls on Biden and Bernie somewhat. Nate Silver has written some about this and can defend the point better than I can (although he’s had some takes recently I’m more or less certain you’d hate), but the gist is Biden has consistently outperformed Bernie in the polls and most of the methodological criticisms people have for those polls (e.g. sample size or sampling bias) are off-base. We can certainly expect Biden’s numbers to drop in coming weeks, but not because recent polls were badly done - post-announcement polling bounces usually fade, that’s normal and to be expected. I think a lot of your prediction that Biden will fail is based more on your intuition than on the data; I won’t argue with your intuition there. But as far as the data is concerned, I have trouble seeing how you could look at Biden as anything other than a frontrunner right now. It's worth noting Nate Silver has basically become what he came to fix. A pundit that opines sans the data. The easiest example is when he tiered the candidates. You can put Biden and Bernie together or Biden on top then Bernie, but you can't have Buttigieg and Harris with Sanders, let alone Harris over Sanders. Or at least he didn't provide any data to support his pushing of Harris. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1116106327208747008As far as Biden's polling he has consistently held a lead, I can't speak to every recent poll but the CNN one showing him "solidifying his frontrunner status" definitely didn't have a significant sample from people under 50. cdn.cnn.comIf other recent ones showing his surge did I haven't seen it yet (could be, I just haven't seen it). Nate Silver is hit or miss for sure, imo. He has an obnoxious contrarian streak thst makes him say/do stuff seemingly just to get a rise out of people, and he likes to act self-aware about it, but he’s not self-aware enough to realize how that tendency toward “spicy” takes actually makes him more similar to a standard pundit; he thinks it sets him apart. On the polling, though, part of why I said something is because I think there’s a temptation to dig into methodology any time a poll suggests something you don’t like, and there’s been quite a bit of that among Sanders supporters recently. The algorithm: If(Supports my hypothesis) retweet uncritically Else quibble with methodology has an obvious confirmation bias to it when considered in those terms, but it’s very easy to fall into unintentionally. Speaking of Nate Silver, I think avoiding this kind of thinking is still one of his strengths as an analyst. Like I said, you tend to make pretty strong (that is, high certainty) predictions which seem more based on your intuition than any particular piece of data, and I wouldn’t know how to argue with you on that; if your intuition is that Bernie is the inevitable nominee, I don’t know what to say besides “we’ll see.” Personally I’m a bit scared that we’ll wind up with a contested convention scenario with no clear frontrunner; but I don’t have any particular evidence to support a prediction, so I wouldn’t know how to argue who’s right. I know you said something but I'm not sure it helps without some sort of data to support it (like I did with the CNN poll that was widely reported showing a surge that could also be explained by not including younger voters (people under 50) in the poll, and it turns out CNN poll did not include them). The thing about probability predictions, is that in elections, they're useless. It means I can say X has a 99.9% chance of winning, then they lose, but I still get to be right. The least risky position is simply saying you'll wait for the results, next is probability prediction, then a real prediction that can be wrong. I find the first two completely pointless as far as connecting analysis with accountability. I know a contested convention was Democrats plan since they made their super delegate compromise. They are putting a lot of faith in Biden/Harris/O'Rourke/Warren the other 15+ to get them there. I mean, I can google some polls for you, or I can link the 538 article that goes through the analysis showing Biden has a polling bounce from his announcement, but it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, since it was already apparent that a) Biden’s ahead, and b) people usually surge temporarily in polls after they announce, so it’s not surprising that he’s up. My point was only that you should be cautious doing methodological quibbling with specific polls that don’t show what you want. I don’t think it’s that important to your prediction anyway, although I’m unclear if it was supposed to have a more sinister undertone (i.e. does “CNN’s poll showing a Biden bounce sampled too many old people” have the subtext “CNN is rigging polls in Biden’s favor”?) Stochastic predictions are the only honest way to predict stochastic events. Does it make judging the quality of a prediction more statistically complex? Sure. Such are the struggles of living in a statistically complex world. Only one of those polls shows anything about the ages (that I saw) but it's still unclear how much of their sample was under 50. It does also show that the surge is with people over 50 though. Whether it's intentional or not is impossible to tell from here but when someone like Nate Silver opens in the article you linked. CNN’s poll found Biden at 39 percent — up 11 points from 28 percent in their previous poll in March — and well ahead of Bernie Sanders, who was at 15 percent. then notes Biden had 46 percent support from Democrats age 50-64 in CNN’s poll and 50 percent support from those 65 and older. But doesn't mention the poll is missing the ages where Bernie polls the strongest, he's not being the contrarian numbers guy, he's being the sellout pundit imo. Sorry, after googling for a moment I’m realizing your methodological complaint about the CNN poll might not even be sound. Can you explain what exactly you think was wrong with that CNN poll, and what you think its significance is? Nothing is "wrong" with the poll, it just didn't have a statistically significant sample of the ages where Bernie performs much better than he does with voters over 50. Most polls don't tell us anything about the electorate models they are using either which can make such coincidences even more pronounced in the final tally. For example if you use a model based on 2012 you get a much more significant spike for Biden than if you use 2008 or 2016 model. Are they using primary electorate data or "Democrat" turnout data? So on and so on. On May 08 2019 08:28 Gahlo wrote:On May 08 2019 08:22 hunts wrote:On May 08 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 07:45 RenSC2 wrote:
The interesting thing about something like the CNN poll is that if it's slanted towards older people, it might actually make it more accurate. Young people don't vote enough. Maybe the "beat Trump" or "Bernie!" waves will finally get them to vote this time, but it didn't happen in 2016 general election or primary. Boring old political insider Hillary crushed Bernie(!) in the primary despite so much of the internet energy being behind Bernie. Then those same internet people start shouting about how it must be rigged. No. The people who vote just quietly preferred Hillary and voted that way. It was the silent majority in action.
It doesn't seem that different this time around either. I'm currently undecided and I'll wait until at least after the first debate to make up my mind. I've seen a few candidates interview with Bill Maher and the only unimpressive one was Julian Castro, the others all impressed in their own ways. I'm not personally excited about Biden and never have been, but he does connect with a lot of people who will quietly vote and just want a return to normal. I'd prefer one of the lower tier candidates to understand how to capture the media spotlight, and do it in a positive way. That's who will beat Trump.
In the end, I'd prefer any of the democratic candidates to Trump and will vote for whoever wins.
However, I would get a little bit of schadenfreude if Bernie got the democratic nomination and then lost to Trump. I don't mind him personally, but his supporters are insufferable. This is a little revisionist if you ask me. Namely that Hillary "crushed" Bernie rather than "held on", which in no small part can be attributed to a deliberate effort at coronation by the DNC and corporate media. Obama was an anomaly of sorts but youth turnout was in fact higher than usual for the primaries. In 17 of the 24 states for which we have both 2008 and 2016 estimates, the percentage of young (ages 17-29) eligible voters who cast a ballot in 2016 was equal to or greater than in 2008. These included the states with the lowest (Nevada, 5%) and highest (New Hampshire, 43%) youth turnout, both of which were the same in ’08 and ’16. In several states, the estimated youth turnout jumped by a substantial amount, increasing by 6+ percentage points in Illinois (18% to 26%), Missouri (21% to 27%), North Carolina (15% to 24%), and Wisconsin (25% to 33%). In Michigan, it nearly doubled: from 14% to 27%. In contrast, in each of the seven states where youth participation was lower in 2016 than in 2008 (Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Ohio) the turnout rate dropped by 3 percentage points or less. civicyouth.org "Held on" isn't exactly accurate. Given the difference in votes when bernie surrendered, I think "crushed" is quite apt and not revisionist history. Things look a lot closer when you take superdelegates out of the picture. It basically cuts her margin of victory in half. Ron Paul got crushed, Jeb Bush got crushed, Hillary hung on to what should have been an easy win losing several states in the process. At least that's my perspective. Notably, her political career is over and Bernie's is reaching a peak Okay, so they didn’t sample enough young people to draw statistically significant conclusions worth reporting about the subgroup. What is it you are concluding from that fact? And why do you believe Nate Silver was irresponsible in his analysis for not mentioning this?
I think... he is saying, if you poll a bunch of old people Biden looks like he's killing it... If you poll a bunch of young people it looks like Bernie is killing it...
People use statistics to bolster their position, and depending on how they use them, they can shape the way things look. That's why you always have to look closer at statistics.
|
On May 08 2019 08:27 Doodsmack wrote:Compare this fact to Trump's public persona, and you can see that Trump is a fraud through and through. We probably should have a sitting special counsel for the duration of Trump's time in office, monitoring everything he does and says. Otherwise, he can't be trusted. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1125900816550907905
Another hard hitter from NYT. Between this and last years Pulitzer winning Trump tax/inheritence article, it's clear the guy's persona is a complete mirage. Both should be required reading material for anyone talking about Trump
On May 08 2019 13:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 08:51 On_Slaught wrote:On May 08 2019 08:27 Doodsmack wrote:Compare this fact to Trump's public persona, and you can see that Trump is a fraud through and through. We probably should have a sitting special counsel for the duration of Trump's time in office, monitoring everything he does and says. Otherwise, he can't be trusted. https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1125900816550907905 Beat me to it. Few things. 1. Trump is nothing if not a con-man. His most impressive con has been convincing millions of people that he is some elite, genius businessman. I wont deny that he is a good con-man. 2. Based on what is known I think a legitimate argument could be made that Trump is actually the worst businessman in America. This will likely become more obvious when (not if) his tax returns are torn into. Between NY state going after them and the House's request (Mnuchin is going to get crushed in court), they will be known soon enough. 3. Where was all this shit back in 2016, NYT? So many stories in the last 2 years about someone who is a bad businessman, and worse person, but all too late to stop the trainwreck. I am really intrigued by Trump's finances. Has he basically just taken and spent money from people based on his father's reputation? Then did he go bankrupt with all that money? And then inherit his father's money worth half a billion in today's dollars? and not pay taxes on it? The secret to being a great businessman may be to borrow and spend a lot of money, declare bankruptcy, inherit money, and not pay taxes (because you spent all your borrowed money).
You should look at how he got loans from Deutsche Bank. It's really insane. He used them to sell casino bonds on which he defaulted, they vowed to never work with him again, yet another division still loaned him, and when he didn't repay those, a new investment division still loaned him more. He managed do dupe the same bank three times just on bluster of being a big shot. (and the incompetence of DB's management)
In 2003, Deutsche Bank helped Mr. Trump’s casino company sell hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds. (The salesmen were rewarded with a trip to Mar-a-Lago.) Mr. Trump’s company defaulted in 2004, leaving Deutsche Bank’s clients with deep losses. The bank’s investment division that sold the bonds vowed to not do business again with Mr. Trump.
A year later, though, Mr. Trump approached another part of the investment division for a $640 million loan to build a skyscraper in Chicago. It made the loan — and in 2008, Mr. Trump defaulted and sued Deutsche Bank. That prompted the whole investment division to sever ties with Mr. Trump.
And then, three years after his previous default, Deutsche Bank started lending to him again, this time through the private-banking division that catered to the superrich. In fact, it lent Mr. Trump money that he used to repay what he still owed Deutsche Bank’s investment division for the Chicago loan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/deutsche-bank-donald-trump.html
|
On May 08 2019 11:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 10:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 08 2019 08:50 iamthedave wrote:
CNN's ratings continue to slump by the looks of things. Not good at all. Death of CNN is inevitable, their own fault for reporting fake news and pushing fear so hard the past 3 years.People are tired of that. While ratings are down, revenue is up, their market isn't just television anymore. I also highly doubt a $3.2 Billion company is going to just "die".
Surely their revenue will take a hit if the ratings are down this badly though?
|
It's CNN's fault for pretending to be even handed or bi partisan, they are just as partisan as Fox or MSNBC but both of those org's clearly state which side they are on. CNN is just awful.
|
CNN has a long way to go before becoming the state media arm of the White House, like Fox is. Now, that is truly partisan.
|
Galaxy Brain take: CNN is having a rating drop because its news coverage is really bad. A section of their viewers are losing interest the lazy talking heads yell type of political entertainment.
|
On May 08 2019 19:38 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 11:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 08 2019 10:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 08 2019 08:50 iamthedave wrote:
CNN's ratings continue to slump by the looks of things. Not good at all. Death of CNN is inevitable, their own fault for reporting fake news and pushing fear so hard the past 3 years.People are tired of that. While ratings are down, revenue is up, their market isn't just television anymore. I also highly doubt a $3.2 Billion company is going to just "die". Surely their revenue will take a hit if the ratings are down this badly though?
Do you think TV revenue = Internet Revenue? I think whatever they lose in TV makes up for it in Internet. CNN has been killing it online. Now that AT&T owns TimeWarner, CNN Digital has been getting massive investments. FOX started in 2018 to actually invest in digital to compete with CNN online. Digital revenues started passing TV revenues in 2017, those that didn't focus on a strategy prior to that, will lose revenue to those that did. In my opinion, this is why may see the data shift towards "FOX" being the highest rated network now on TV, since large droves of people are switching to internet only, while the older generation tend to still watch TV, and mostly FOX.
|
Trump on twitter in reaction to the NYT article of him losing 1.17 billion: It was sport under real estate developers to make losses in the 80's to dodge taxes, everyone did it.
|
You see, I would say he is admitting to tax evasion, but I know he is full of shit. He is just covering for being bad at business. Like one of the worst out there.
|
On May 08 2019 22:20 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Trump on twitter in reaction to the NYT article of him losing 1.17 billion: It was sport under real estate developers to make losses in the 80's to dodge taxes, everyone did it.
So how did he take out so many loans and not lose all his buildings? Or did he lose all his buildings?
Also:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Seems like Trump should be able sue them for defamation if it is false given it's based off of tax records. Something for someone like Trump should be able to produce. Ofc that would require him to actually produce facts.
|
If he lost all the buildings, there should be court records of it happening. Especially in New York, as they require legal action to foreclose on a debt for real property. Or there would be bankruptcy filings showing him forfeiting the assets. The whole thing sounds very strange and is yet another reason why the House should have the man’s tax returns.
|
On May 08 2019 22:28 Plansix wrote:
You see, I would say he is admitting to tax evasion, but I know he is full of shit. He is just covering for being bad at business. Like one of the worst out there.
The fact that he was the one taxpayer losing the most money in the US for ten years and landed a one billion dollar deficit before having someone write the art of the deal for him is absolutely hilarious.
But anyway. It also shows that in the US if you belong to a class of ultra rich people you are essentially not taking any risk ever. You can go a billion in the red, you will always land on your feet somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
