.

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

As was already said, Nate Silver doesn't do polling.

So he can just wash his hands of the polls he uses to reach his probability? 

I heard an interview on the radio where a political scientist called Silver a Clerk. He just compiles information and uses math to achieve a probability of a result. But people saw it as the Gospel truth because of his success in 2012. 

[cybercoma]

9 hours ago, TimG said:

That statement is incredibly racist because it treats all white people as the same.

They're all white and when race is used against people, that does make them all the same.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

They're all white and when race is used against people, that does make them all the same.

So if one substitutes religion for race, does that mean all Muslims are the same?

[cybercoma]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

So if one substitutes religion for race, does that mean all Muslims are the same?

When their religion is used against them, they sure as hell are to some people. You don't have to look very far around the forum to see that.

[cybercoma]

And strictly speaking, yeah....all Muslims are Muslim. I mean, is that really a question? I didn't say all white people are the same. I said they're all white and that makes them the same when race is used against people because they all share the same race.

[Guest]

Just now, cybercoma said:

When their religion is used against them, they sure as hell are to some people. You don't have to look very far around the forum to see that.

Oh, I misunderstood your original post.  You agreed with TimG that white people were being maligned unfairly.  I apologise.

[cybercoma]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Oh, I misunderstood your original post.  You agreed with TimG that white people were being maligned unfairly.  I apologise.

I didn't agree with him.

[Guest]

Just now, cybercoma said:

I didn't agree with him.

Yeah, I know.  But what else was I going to say when you purposely misinterpreted my post?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And strictly speaking, yeah....all Muslims are Muslim. I mean, is that really a question? I didn't say all white people are the same. I said they're all white and that makes them the same when race is used against people because they all share the same race.

So all Muslims are the same when their religion is used against people? 

I don't think so, but then I'm a non powerful colour blind (my interpretation) white man.

[cybercoma]

Maybe if you spent more time trying to understand what I'm saying instead of trying to find a contradiction that's not there, you would actually understand my post.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Maybe if you spent more time trying to understand what I'm saying instead of trying to find a contradiction that's not there, you would actually understand my post.

It's possible.  You aren't saying, then, that all white people are responsible for the actions of a few?  Or a lot?

So I'm actually not the same as other white people, if I choose not to be?

[DogOnPorch]

He agrees with dialamah's racism...nuf said.

[Smallc]

38 minutes ago, Boges said:

So he can just wash his hands of the polls he uses to reach his probability? 

I heard an interview on the radio where a political scientist called Silver a Clerk. He just compiles information and uses math to achieve a probability of a result. But people saw it as the Gospel truth because of his success in 2012. 

Well he's certainly more than a clerk.  He has a model of aggregation.  It worked better in 2012 than in 2016, and in 2016 was still more accurate than anyone else.

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Well he's certainly more than a clerk.  He has a model of aggregation.  It worked better in 2012 than in 2016, and in 2016 was still more accurate than anyone else.

Low bar when giving Trump 30% is BETTER than anyone else. 

I remember, when it seemed Trump was relatively close on national polls (at least within the margin of error) people would discredit them because Nate Silver had Clinton winning with 90% probability. 

[Smallc]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Low bar when giving Trump 30% is BETTER than anyone else. 

I remember, when it seemed Trump was relatively close on national polls (at least within the margin of error) people would discredit them because Nate Silver had Clinton winning with 90% probability. 

At that point, Clinton was clearly winning.  The FBI ended that.

It's also worth nothing that the polls were off by 2% - closer than in 2012.  Thugs just didn't break down as predicted (and indeed, Silver said there was a high chance that Trump would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote).

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

At that point, Clinton was clearly winning.  The FBI ended that.

It's also worth nothing that the polls were off by 2% - closer than in 2012.  Thugs just didn't break down as predicted (and indeed, Silver said there was a high chance that Trump would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote).

Hahahahahaha...clearly winning.

 

No she wasn't...being the whole point of Trump winning.

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, Smallc said:

At that point, Clinton was clearly winning.  The FBI ended that.

It's also worth nothing that the polls were off by 2% - closer than in 2012.  Thugs just didn't break down as predicted (and indeed, Silver said there was a high chance that Trump would win the electoral college but lose the popular vote).

I like how them re-opening the investigation sunk her, but not the fact that they revealed that there was nothing to see there on the Sunday. 

Had she won and the FBI disclosed that they found e-mails on the husband of her chief of staff's computer but they didn't want to say anything we may see rioting over that too. 

2% in the polls shouldn't give her a 70% chance of winning. This is why I hate polling, they can't predict that 10 million people would just stay home. 

Polling should be banned during election campaigns. 

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boges

[Smallc]

Clintons poll numbers never recovered post Comey.  

[Smallc]

Just now, Boges said:

I like how them re-opening the investigation sunk her, but not the fact that they revealed that there was nothing to see there on the Sunday. 

Had she won and the FBI disclosed that they found e-mails on the husband of her chief of staff's e-mail but they didn't want to say anything we may see rioting over that too. 

2% in the polls shouldn't give her a 70% chance of winning. This is why I hate polling, they can't predict that 10 million people would just stay home. 

Polling should be banned during election campaigns. 

 

Just because you don't understand probability, it doesn't mean that it's not useful. 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Clintons poll numbers never recovered post Comey.  

 

Oh dear: the FBI were meanies wanting to investigate Clinton for her crimes. How dare they...there should be a law against it.

Right?

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Just because you don't understand probability, it doesn't mean that it's not useful. 

I understand, he aggregated the existing polls to get his own numbers. Canada has a site that does the same thing. BTW, 308 didn't have JT winning a majority, I don't believe. At least that site has a high and low for each party. 

But if you're probability says that one candidate has 3 in 4 chance of winning when the margin is only 2% one way or the other in a handful of states then the system failed. And failed miserably. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Boges

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Low bar when giving Trump 30% is BETTER than anyone else. 

 

This is more like a weather forecast. When you have a 30% chance of showers, most of the time you can go out and enjoy your day. There will be the odd time however that you get wet. 

[Boges]

Just now, ?Impact said:

This is more like a weather forecast. When you have a 30% chance of showers, most of the time you can go out and enjoy your day. There will be the odd time however that you get wet. 

The stakes seem to be somewhat higher. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

The stakes seem to be somewhat higher. 

 

Ok, there is a 30% chance of a tornado. 

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I understand, he aggregated the existing polls to get his own numbers. Canada has a site that does the same thing. BTW, 308 didn't have JT winning a majority, I don't believe. At least that site has a high and low for each party. 

But if you're probability says that one candidate has 3 in 4 chance of winning when the margin is only 2% one way or the other in a handful of states then the system failed. And failed miserably. 

538 has a band of possible outcomes by state.