EPTTo me these numbers just mean a performance over expectations for Buttigieg, a sign polling is pretty on point or underestimating Sanders, and a devastating loss for Biden (which is in turn super good news for Sanders).
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2097
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
To me these numbers just mean a performance over expectations for Buttigieg, a sign polling is pretty on point or underestimating Sanders, and a devastating loss for Biden (which is in turn super good news for Sanders). | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
because it is a caucus, and caucuses suck | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
As true as that is it's not an answer. I can guarantee there's no answer to that question besides "it decides how many national delegates you get", but if you tie on national delegates... It's a relic stat from before Bernie got them to disclose vote totals. It's completely meaningless if it doesn't translate into extra national delegates. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 08 2020 05:27 Mohdoo wrote: Convincing Democrats anything other than a majority of votes counts as a win would be difficult. So long as Bernie got more votes, he won on the eyes of most I think the chances of Sanders getting a majority of votes anywhere besides Vermont is pretty slim until pretty late in the game. Hopefully he can edge out pluralities closer to 40% though. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On February 08 2020 06:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think the chances of Sanders getting a majority of votes anywhere besides Vermont is pretty slim until pretty late in the game. Hopefully he can edge out pluralities closer to 40% though. Bad wording on my part. I just mean the most votes. Whoever gets the most votes wins. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23700 Posts
On February 08 2020 04:44 TheTenthDoc wrote: It is so interesting how deeply embedded horse-race winner take all logic is in the perception of American politics. We have a media and population obsessed with declaring a "winner" in a situation where no one cracked 30% of the vote or is likely to crack 33% of the pledged delegates (with a difference of 1 delegate at most splitting the "winner" and 2nd place). To me these numbers just mean a performance over expectations for Buttigieg, a sign polling is pretty on point or underestimating Sanders, and a devastating loss for Biden (which is in turn super good news for Sanders). I care a lot less about who won Iowa than how Democrats are handling a wrongly reported election. If we have another Florida 2000 type situation Democrats have incinerated their credibility, especially against a troll like Trump. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23700 Posts
I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521 I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. Think it has something to do with them both being a lot of peoples second choice? Biden and Yang were not viable in a lot of areas | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23700 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:43 IyMoon wrote: Think it has something to do with them both being a lot of peoples second choice? Biden and Yang were not viable in a lot of areas It could be a million reasons. It is the willingness to "just move on" that concerns me the most. We know Iowa posted incorrect election results that media reported on and misinformed people and no one is going to correct it. Appears to be 0 accountability for the incompetence as well. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote: Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” Imagine how easy it would be to substantively address the claim, rather than come up with some irrelevant reference to academia. | ||
micronesia
United States24756 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:51 farvacola wrote: Imagine how easy it would be to substantively address the claim, rather than come up with some irrelevant reference to academia. I think what he means is that the appearance of non-randomness is not necessarily evidence of such. In other words, there could be absolutely no foul play, depending on the system which led to the data in question. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:51 farvacola wrote: Imagine how easy it would be to substantively address the claim, rather than come up with some irrelevant reference to academia. Okay. Assessment of randomness is a well-known and well-studied statistical problem. There are things like chi squared tests that can be used to determine a p value. The methodology for a problem like this one would be complicated, but certainly not insurmountable. If you did that kind of math, you could say something like “assuming erroneous SDE allocation were randomly distributed, results biased towards one candidate in this way would occur in less than 5% of cases.” I absolutely think this kind of analysis should be done! But posting a quick bar graph and saying “doesn’t look random to me” is a sure sign that the statistics weren’t done with much rigor. I’m not a data scientist, for instance, but I do spend a fair amount of time looking at chromatograms and linear regressions at work, and that data doesn’t look all that improbable in a random distribution to me. Of course, proving “there’s an effect here with p < .05” would be a far sight from proving “these errors were intentional” anyway. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45344 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:44 ChristianS wrote: Imagine how easy it would be to make it in academia if all you had to do to prove an effect is plot the data and say “doesn’t look random to me!” I don't think that's the objective here. On February 08 2020 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Someone plotted the identified errors from a spreadsheet, and while they definitely impacted multiple candidates it doesn't look random to me. https://twitter.com/ElzaRechtman/status/1225828346954731521 I'd buy Warren and Biden being random but Pete and Sanders look notably different than the rest. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On February 08 2020 07:57 micronesia wrote: I think what he means is that the appearance of non-randomness is not necessarily evidence of such. In other words, there could be absolutely no foul play, depending on the system which led to the data in question. Sure, but, on its face, the appearance of non-randomness provides at least marginal support for the claims that something more than directionless incompetence is at play. I don’t know enough about methodological comparisons relevant to that graph to say one way or another, but dismissing it out of hand, without a specific reason, is not helpful to anyone involved in the discussion regarding the character of the errors that were at play in Iowa. On February 08 2020 08:01 ChristianS wrote: Okay. Assessment of randomness is a well-known and well-studied statistical problem. There are things like chi squared tests that can be used to determine a p value. The methodology for a problem like this one would be complicated, but certainly not insurmountable. If you did that kind of math, you could say something like “assuming erroneous SDE allocation were randomly distributed, results biased towards one candidate in this way would occur in less than 5% of cases.” I absolutely think this kind of analysis should be done! But posting a quick bar graph and saying “doesn’t look random to me” is a sure sign that the statistics weren’t done with much rigor. I’m not a data scientist, for instance, but I do spend a fair amount of time looking at chromatograms and linear regressions at work, and that data doesn’t look all that improbable in a random distribution to me. Of course, proving “there’s an effect here with p < .05” would be a far sight from proving “these errors were intentional” anyway. Thank you for this, I understand your objection now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23700 Posts
On February 08 2020 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't think that's the objective here. I'm interpreting this plot to mean that, after accounting for all the remaining errors across the Iowa counties/ precincts, Sanders should have ~2 more delegates than he currently has (~2.9 added but also ~.7 subtracted), Buttigieg should have ~2 fewer than he currently has (~2.8 subtracted but also ~0.6 added), and so on. Is that an accurate interpretation of what's being displayed here? That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 08 2020 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote: That's what I see basically. As I said though I'm more concerned that knowingly posting incorrect election results and refusing to address them is being accepted with 0 accountability from the Democratic party. The political horse race stuff is secondary, if that, to me. I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23700 Posts
On February 08 2020 08:15 ChristianS wrote: I agree with all of this, by the way. This should be fully investigated from top to bottom, with the severity of scrutiny you’d expect from, say, a fatal workplace accident or a Mars probe that blew up in LEO or something. That kind of thing takes time, but anything less than a complete, excruciatingly detailed timeline with corrective and preventive recommendations would be another massive failure on the DNC’s part. We know that is not happening or going to happen and people want to move on for political expediency and I find that very concerning is my point. EDIT: I would just say it doesn't take an investigation to see the DNC (that cleared the companies and app) and the IDP totally failed to do the bare minimum tasked of them after questionable 2016 results. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
