Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 28, 2016, 08:58:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1086
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: Today at 05:15:07 pm
The Washington Senate result is 48-41 Murary.  The primary was about 59-36, so...no.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most? on: Today at 09:18:59 am
He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).

And besides that, accepting mencken's framing implicitly accepts that Trump did oppose the war in Iraq "presciently", and the best evidence he can mount for that is that Sean Hannity will totally tell you that they had phone calls a couple of times about it.

Or, you know, the moderator could have done his homework.

1. That really doesn't address the points I made.

2. This appears to be a video of Trump where the main argument Trump is presenting is that Bush should make a decision.  I don't see Trump expressing personal ambivalence, let alone opposition.  The only "ambivalence" seems to be him stating "maybe Bush shouldn't do it yet" when discussing his deference to Bush's decision-making process.  This doesn't contradict his "yes I guess" response to an Iraq War question.  It's consistent with him supporting the War (somewhat apathetically perhaps), but saying that he respects Bush's decision-making process.  I don't see what in Holt's question is unreasonable considering these facts taken together.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most? on: Today at 08:41:41 am
He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Nate Cohn vs. Nate Silver on: Today at 07:27:41 am
I like Cohn, but I'm curious to know your deep, surely methodology-based reasoning on this one.

That he hasn't been basically completely full of sh!t this election season? I made this because he got in a recent Twitter feud with Silver.

I don't think Silver has been totally full of crap this election season.  He blew analyzing the primary, but he's been pretty forthright about why and how he's changed his methodology.  I mean, look at the difference in how FiveThirtyEight and the Upshot's General election models treat uncertainty and volatility.  Silver actually seems to have done a solid job of that, while I'll say Cohn and a few others were a bit too 2008/2012 in terms of including uncertainty in their evaluation.  I didn't really watch Cohn during the primary season so I can't evaluate how he handled it vs. Silver.  But I think they're both worth reading and considering, and as much as I disagreed with Silver throughout the primary and think he may have been too committed to his theories, I'm not willing to blackball him, especially based on how reasonably he seems to have evaluated his mistakes.
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: Today at 06:50:40 am
The legislative map could be pretty crazy, though.  There are so many Seattle-area LDs that are growing above state average, and not many growing far enough below state average to "absorb" those new registrants from neighboring high-growth areas.  There could be some fun, weird shifting.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hey look who started #TrumpWon! on: Today at 06:47:35 am
It's amazing how many journalists retweeted this without ever bothering to source it.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Utah - Salt Lake City Tribune/Hinkley/Dan Jones: Trump +9 on: September 26, 2016, 06:50:41 pm
Seems to be entered in wrong on the polls page... Says a tie.

It's not wrong.  It's a tie between Trump and "Other."  That's just how the software handles counting third parties.
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Nate Cohn vs. Nate Silver on: September 26, 2016, 04:31:38 pm
I like Cohn, but I'm curious to know your deep, surely methodology-based reasoning on this one.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-Morning Call: Clinton +3 on: September 25, 2016, 06:56:07 pm
So she's up 5 nationally and only winning Pennsylvania by 2??
she's up 2, maybe 3

Indeed. 

Plus, one Pennsylvania poll is no reason to freak out about a gap between the national polls and state polls.  The national polls, in aggregate, effectively have a small margin of error.  But this poll is +/-5%, so even if it's perfectly sampled, the MoE alone can account for Clinton being 5% higher or lower.  There definitely appears to be a little difference between the swing state and national polls this year, but this one poll being "off" isn't much evidence either way.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Utah - Salt Lake City Tribune/Hinkley/Dan Jones: Trump +9 on: September 25, 2016, 01:09:09 pm
Wish we had the poll PDF, because it would be awesome if this poll actually has a higher share for "Other" than either Clinton or Trump.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dave's Mock Election 2016 is now open!!! on: September 25, 2016, 01:07:03 pm
I voted and enabled the option to publicly show my support, but I'm not getting that little sign under my avatar. Frustrating.
You have to do so both at the mock election and in your profile.  The one at the mock election does it for that election only.  The one in your profile does it for all elections.

You also have to make sure your Atlas account is linked to your forum account.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shooting in Burlington, WA leaves four dead, one injured on: September 25, 2016, 08:20:33 am
Quote from: komonews.com
Law enforcement sources tell KOMO 4 that the suspect's name is Arcan Cetin.
http://komonews.com/news/local/sheriffs-office-person-of-interest-arrested-in-cascade-mall-shooting

Quote from: @ArcanCetin
We win I vote for Hillary Clinton
https://twitter.com/ArcanCetin/status/556955812896444416

Quote from: @ArcanCetin
Country is for Republicans and confused Democrats.

Like someone said in the comments, that might be in reference to country music.

I'm not sure I'd infer anything here.  His friends apparently described him as a "conservative" from ROTC.  He also voted a Republican ballot in the May presidential primary (that hasn't been reported in the media yet, but it's public record).  More than anything, his Twitter feed seems pretty incoherent, so I wouldn't read into it much.

He also has a history of minor-league history of domestic violence arrests and weird behavior toward women.  An ex-girlfriend apparently used to work at the Macy's where he opened fire, as well.  It seems like there's a good chance there were no higher principles involved in this.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Gennifer Flowers at Monday's debate hurt Hillary or Trump more? on: September 25, 2016, 08:01:56 am
Pat Ward ‏@WardDPatrick  51m
Gennifer Flowers will not be at the debate per @johnrobertsFox
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Hey, Santander: come and play! on: September 25, 2016, 04:16:30 am
Why are we asking people who know a lot about literature whether Walter Mitty is a well-known reference?  Shouldn't you be asking us ignoramuses?
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Gennifer Flowers at Monday's debate hurt Hillary or Trump more? on: September 25, 2016, 03:09:43 am

Who is going to remember her? The younger generation certainly won't know who she is. It's old news and water under the bridge.

Boring.

Yawn.



to Age 40+ voters : old news, boring.

to millennial voters: oh! I didn't know it! shocking!

You think that millennial voters don't know that Bill Clinton had affairs...?
16  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: WV: Returning Family Finds Their Dog Gutted and Butchered on: September 24, 2016, 12:59:01 pm
I guess there are points here where we just simply would disagree.  Sadism??  The dictionary definition says "the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others (in general use: deliberate cruelty)."  Could you get that definition to describe the responses in this thread?  I suppose.  However, I'd argue that definition strongly hints at enjoying the pain of innocents, and society deciding someone has shown such an utter disregard for life that the person no longer deserves such a fundamental gift as human existence because of what he or she has done isn't exactly "sadism."  I'm not an avid death penalty proponent and certainly have my doubts about its effectiveness, but I can't stand arguments that originate from even a shred of sympathy for the offender/judging of those who are outraged by the crime.

I don't think the definition of sadism hints at inflicting pain on innocents.  I think it's all about enjoying inflicting pain.  And while this may not be pain inflicted on innocents, it's unnecessary pain not merely intended to restrain or deter.  It's done because it's either pleasurably cathartic, which is absolutely sadistic, or because "they deserve it," which we can discuss separately, but which I basically think is incoherent feeling-logic we have for evolutionary purposes.

I don't think either are particularly good things, and definitely shouldn't be celebrated like they often are.

This was a monstrous act with deliberate cruelty upward a defenseless, totally innocent creature, a creature that holds immense sentimental value for the family it was a part of, no doubt.  Someone capable of this should be off the streets ASAP (jail, of course), but if something were to "happen" to him or her in the meantime, would I feel bad?  Nope, and if that makes me a sadist, whatever!

Not what I'm saying, and I doubt it's what anyone is saying.  I imagine that the person in question is a psychopath.  In most cases, I think a binary approach to empathy is dumb.  Of all the groups I think it makes sense to have a binary approach to empathy, it's probably psychopaths.  But there is a difference between not feeling much empathy for suffering, and thinking it's morally laudable to inflict that suffering for no concrete purpose.

I think Antonio may be arguing that socially-acceptable forms of sadism, shaming, moralistic cruelty, etc., are more troubling -- mostly because they're socially acceptable, not because they're more screwed up than psychopathy.  There's some validity to that argument.

That's not bleeding-heart -- that's a recognition that we evolved the ready capacity to be cruel moralists, and that sometimes manifests in screwed up ways.
17  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: WV: Returning Family Finds Their Dog Gutted and Butchered on: September 24, 2016, 12:54:48 am
At this point, I'm more disgusted by the reactions to this thread than I was at the news itself.

This is an ABSURD thing to say, no matter what highly-thought-out, unbudging "moral" compass you think makes you above the outrage to this story.

I don't think he's arguing that outrage and moral repulsion are unreasonable reactions here.  I think he's arguing that sadism is a troubling, unhealthy way of manifesting outrage and moral repulsion.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The absentee/early vote thread on: September 24, 2016, 12:16:45 am
Didn't we learn in 2014 that using early/absentee data to extraploate things can put egg on your face?

People thought Hagan was going to coast to victory based just on favorable absentee data out of NC in 2014.

Definitely true, but there isnt harm in comparing and noticing the differences compared to 2012

Hagan was hurt by the collapse in election-day turnout.

Not to go off track, but what the heck was up with that? How can a campaign be so good at absentee/early vote, but so bad on election day at GOTV?

I'd argue that campaigns and outreach drive early voting turnout more than Election Day turnout.  Early voting turnout mostly consists of voters who were inevitably going to cast ballots, but were extra motivated to do it early.  It's quite possible that a campaign could do an excellent job of motivating those inevitable voters, and yet the overall electorate could exhibit depressed turnout.  In short, it's easier to convert someone from an inevitable voter than an early voter, than it is to convince them that it's worth voting at all.

Another factor: 1,000 voters converted to early voting may be a meaningful increase in early voting (as a % increase), but 1,000 voters mobilized on Election Day may only be a drop in the bucket.

And most obviously, there's way less time to mobilize Election Day voters than to convert voters into early voters.
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: LOL, long time posters (i.e. Alcon) might get a kick out of this on: September 23, 2016, 11:28:14 pm
BRTD is like that one uncle at any family reunion.

"Hey Steve, remember when I poured Tabasco sauce in your grandma's glass of wine?  *elbows Steve in the ribs*  Remember?  Heh heh."
"...No, not really."
"Yeah, you remember.  She got so mad!"
"Um, no.  When was it?"
"It was right after your christening."

i bet he's wearing tie dye t-shirts these days too, i can just feel it
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump on: September 23, 2016, 11:26:31 pm
The Republicans aren't the working class party and that won't change with this election.  Whites love to overlook that many members of the working class are actually minorities.  Go figure!

Hate to break it to you dude, but the working class vote has been voting Republican for quite awhile now.

Um... no? Try again.

The Republicans aren't the working class party and that won't change with this election.  Whites love to overlook that many members of the working class are actually minorities.  Go figure!

Hate to break it to you dude, but the working class vote has been voting Republican for quite awhile now.

Unless we're only talking about the white working-class, by what metric is that true?

Don't you know? In Republican fantasy land, blacks don't count as working class. To GOPers, black people are no more than welfare queens who leech off the "hard working rich" and only vote Democrat so that they can receive their free Obamaphones or whatever other nonsense they believe.

I mean, in his possible defense, those in the lower income brackets are about 60% Democratic, and disproportionately don't work.  It may be that the full-time employed working-class, if you want to limit the working-class to those who work, is slightly Republican.  I just don't have concrete evidence that's true.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: No Fortune 100 CEOs Back Republican Donald Trump on: September 23, 2016, 11:11:33 pm
The Republicans aren't the working class party and that won't change with this election.  Whites love to overlook that many members of the working class are actually minorities.  Go figure!

Hate to break it to you dude, but the working class vote has been voting Republican for quite awhile now.

Unless we're only talking about the white working-class, by what metric is that true?
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: "Never wrong pundit" Allan Lichtman predicts Clinton win. on: September 23, 2016, 08:46:52 am
What predictions did he get perfectly right? The Keys he made with hindsight?

He correctly predicted the popular vote winner months and sometimes even years in advance for all the elections from 1984 to 2012. Even when the candidates themselves weren't known yet, he predicted which party would win. So I think some posters in this thread are being a bit hard on him.

My issue isn't with his record.  That famous Election-Picking Octopus has a pretty damn good record, too -- and obviously Lichtman is identifying variables that have some degree of relevance, so I wouldn't allege he's entirely skating on luck.  My problem is that the idea that his methodology identifies the relevant variables in an election so completely that you can add up "points" to accurately estimate a winner...it's pretty absurd.  I also just don't think highly of the way he talks about his system.  I think he sees it as methodologically very serious, instead of being a useful way of thinking through things.
23  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: LOL, long time posters (i.e. Alcon) might get a kick out of this on: September 23, 2016, 08:35:39 am
I'm so confused because my name is in the title, but I only faintly remember this band's name and have no idea what's happening

am i dead
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Military Times poll of active duty troops: Trump +1...over Johnson on: September 22, 2016, 03:00:06 am
Usually when Military Times has released polls in the past, the results were from within their own subscriber base, which...would almost certainly have a heavily-conservative bent.

Was this an actual scientific poll that surveyed 2,000 likely voters/service-members from the electorate at-large, or did they survey 2,000 likely voters/service-members from within their own ranks?

I should have read the article before I commented.  They do seem to be clearing claiming in the article it's a random-sample scientific poll where they've separately verified most of the respondents' statuses.  That's...pretty impressive, considering it's a n=2,207 poll of a small slice of the American population.

Quote
Between Sept. 8 and 15, Military Times and IVMF conducted a voluntary, confidential online survey of U.S. service members. The questions focused on the nation's current political climate, the 2016 presidential election and other relevant issues.

The survey received 2,207 responses from active-duty troops. A standard methodology was used by IVMF analysts to estimate the weights for each individual observation of the survey sample. The margin of error for the presidential preference question is 2 percent. Other questions have slightly higher margins of error.

The survey audience was 85 percent male and 15 percent female, and had a mean age of 29 years old. The respondents identified themselves as 73 percent white, 16 percent Hispanic, 8 percent African American, 4 percent Asian and 8 percent other ethnicities. Respondents were able to select more than one race.

Responses came from each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and unspecified sites overseas.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Military Times poll of active duty troops: Trump +1...over Johnson on: September 22, 2016, 01:56:54 am
I really doubt Clinton is doing this poorly with enlisted, considering the ethnic diversity of that population.  In past years, the Military Times poll results never really matched results on military bases.  I'm not saying the vote on bases is perfectly representative of this population, either, but I'd trust them over this poll.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1086


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines