Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.

bolverk

By bolverk
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bolverk

bolverk 29116

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

bwahahahahahahaha

 

 

Does that Russian Morris Code translate into English? I'm asking because the number of times that woman blinks makes it look like she's in distress.

And, to be clear, I hold absolutely zero sympathy for her if she's under any sort of duress.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Js1

    3851

  • Pancho

    1219

  • tx 3 putt

    1191

  • Red Five

    1004

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chult86
Chult86

I don't post all that often, though don't mistake that for not enjoying this board's discourse, OUsucks/Texags point and laughs, and quality original content on a frequent basis. I haven't felt t

Clintonaldo
Clintonaldo

Just had an interesting conversation with wife. Her: Hey Wednesday I need you to pick our son up Me: ok but be home by 4 because I am going to Chili’s for some internet friends. Her: You are mee

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom

A conversation with my wife: ”We have to go to Chili’s when Kamala wins.” ”…Why?” ”Because that’s what Surly is doing.” ”We have to go to Chili’s because of Surly.” “Yes.”

Posted Images

ROFL BOX

ROFL BOX 6635

Posted
Posted

Would you have *EVER* in your life have thought anyone who was a hair's distance away from The People's House would do this sort of thing in punlic?

Remember when Republicans were freaking out because Obama wore a tan suit or they clutched pearls when Clinton answered the "boxers or briefs" question?

Messenger_creation_306BFB47-A001-4873-A155-8F1DD9929489.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 6715

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Sezler is an outlier, she does her own thing, gets real data, and politics be damned.  Shockingly enough, that simple approach with no bullshit seems to be pretty accurate.  

There are others trying to emulate her, but frankly they get drowned out, partly by partisan polls commissioned and paid for by both parties (though far more from Republicans, who to boot weaponize them), and then slapdicks like Silver who has monetized the polling business.  So the real problem is, you only have a handful of people doing actual real work, and they are completely drowned out by an old asshole trying to make a buck.  The problem with herding is, all the monetized polls figure they can't be hurt if they are in the ballpark as everyone else, so now, the actually polling data is secondary to being near the pack with everyone else.  So the idea of polling aggregation is then completely fucking useless because the data is secondary.  

In short, it's a vicious circle jerk of stupidity.  In fact the circle jerk is probably better time spent, at least at the end there is a tangible result.  

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chopper

Chopper 16736

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

Yes she only polls in Iowa so it seems she's built up quite a great data set to draw from. She apparently doesn't even hire out for polls in other states. Just sticks to Iowa.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52120

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

Well some polls are doing things like assuming a 77% white vote, skewing way whiter than normal, which pulls the number towards Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 6715

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well some polls are doing things like assuming a 77% white vote, skewing way whiter than normal, which pulls the number towards Trump.  

That's inventing demographics that don't exist. That's not incompetent, it's flat out nefarious. 

It's been quite the shocking revelation that something as big as the USA presidential election with all the billions of dollars tied up in the whole thing only has a single lady in bumbfuck Iowa that conducts representative sample election polls correctly. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89101

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

So what’s Night Crew doing?  If you need some suggestions, here’s a few

  • Watching Parks and Rec (or Agatha Harkness)
  • Enjoying the rain if you are lucky
  • Plotting where to dump the next body near or in Town Lake
  • Masturbatin’ to Louise Perry videos where she talks about declining birthrates
  • Checking on their Canadian duel-citizenship application
  • Trolling relatives on Facebook with videos of Trump going down on a microphone 
  • Watching videos of 20-somethings working on cruise ships and realizing you should have done that 25 years ago,
  • Watching Stacey Millner-Collins yoga videos
  • Watching Amtrak videos on YouTube and planning trips you’ll never take
  • Watching Usagi Electric videos on YouTube and plotting how to fully restore a TI-99/4A
  • Analyzing the votes of 6 people in a New Hampshire village 
  • Watching real estate videos from New England for houses twice as big and a third the cost of Austin houses
  • Playing Ticket to Ride online
  • Loading up a few dozen tabs on your phone for tracking various state elections
  • Planning what GIFs to post on relatives’ Facebook pages when states start being called
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
HenryJames

HenryJames 65604

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, Hermanator said:

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

 

6ff06a70-5af2-4c9e-9ed2-4bea8955467c.png

  • Haha 9
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
quigley

quigley 1382

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Sezler is an outlier, she does her own thing, gets real data, and politics be damned.  Shockingly enough, that simple approach with no bullshit seems to be pretty accurate.  

There are others trying to emulate her, but frankly they get drowned out, partly by partisan polls commissioned and paid for by both parties (though far more from Republicans, who to boot weaponize them), and then slapdicks like Silver who has monetized the polling business.  So the real problem is, you only have a handful of people doing actual real work, and they are completely drowned out by an old asshole trying to make a buck.  The problem with herding is, all the monetized polls figure they can't be hurt if they are in the ballpark as everyone else, so now, the actually polling data is secondary to being near the pack with everyone else.  So the idea of polling aggregation is then completely fucking useless because the data is secondary.  

In short, it's a vicious circle jerk of stupidity.  In fact the circle jerk is probably better time spent, at least at the end there is a tangible result.  

I finally got around to reading the Des Moines Register article.

The BIG difference between Selzer is that she got 808 respondents from only 1038 calls. This is an UNBELIEVABLE response rate. NYT/Siena reported 2.5% response rate.

15 - 20% would be amazing, but she's getting 80% ??? Amazing if true. Leaves me wondering what makes her dial sheet so much better than everyone else's.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11588

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, quigley said:

I finally got around to reading the Des Moines Register article.

The BIG difference between Selzer is that she got 808 respondents from only 1038 calls. This is an UNBELIEVABLE response rate. NYT/Siena reported 2.5% response rate.

15 - 20% would be amazing, but she's getting 80% ??? Amazing if true. Leaves me wondering what makes her dial sheet so much better than everyone else's.

We’re in a position of hoping she’s not faking it.  Unfortunately I’ve known a lot of women in my days, and they ALL fake it. 

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 18549

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

FYI, more than 78 million Americans cast their vote during early voting. That is more Americans than voted for Dotard in 2020. Fuck Trump.

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

We’re in a position of hoping she’s not faking it.  Unfortunately I’ve known a lot of women in my days, and they ALL fake it. 

Women having to fake it is more of an idictment about you and your ability than it is about them.

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
aggie08

aggie08 20541

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Off to a very inauspicious start to Election Day, in too big a hurry just fat fingered my computer password 1 too many times and am locked out...great

Like you were going to do any work today anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16360

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hermanator said:

I'm not a statistician but I did have to take a few higher level probability and statistics courses for my undergrad 20 years ago. From what I remember the key to all of it is the quality of input data. That's a very difficult thing to obtain, but the majority of the work and attention to detail should be put into obtain as close to a representative sample as possible without poisoning with bias. If you put garbage data in you're going to get garbage data out. 

I don't follow election polling at all so don't know how they source their data, but it seems Selzer is the closest to quality data input by 20+ years of experience sourcing data from her smallish state. Then the only adjustments needed are adjusting the sample demographics to mirror the registered voter demographics. 

If these other pollsters are taking results they don't feel are quality enough and adjusting them to mirror prior results 4 years ago that's purely invalid, garbage data. That's omitting everything that's happened in the last 4 years. Which in this case is more change in this arena than I believe has ever happened in a 4 year period in the history of the country other than the civil war. 

What we need is about 10 Selzers, one for each of the swing states, that put all their effort and a scientific attention to detail into doing it the right way in their individual states. Right now all we have is one great sample and a shit ton of biased, garbage data it appears. 

100% spot on, and as it turns out if you aggregate bullshit, it turns out, it's bullshit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
quigley

quigley 1382

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Off to a very inauspicious start to Election Day, in too big a hurry just fat fingered my computer password 1 too many times and am locked out...great

It's 5 minutes bro (or sometimes 15).

Do some pushups and squats for Kamala.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...