Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

They sure as fuck don’t.

pathetic

Yes, they do. All the highly publicized polls you see leading up to a presidential election are polls of the national popular vote.

They were incredibly accurate in 2016. 

Posted
38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't be this dumb.

The polls were right. They measure the national popular vote.

And they said landslide. Trump won't win a state....  wait........

Posted
16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And they said landslide. Trump won't win a state....  wait........

Pundits said that. Not polls. The polls were right. Predictions based on those polls, not so much.

Posted
16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Pundits said that. Not polls. The polls were right. Predictions based on those polls, not so much.

Whatever gets you thru those cold cold days for the next 3 years at least.........

Posted
20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.amp.html

They don’t just poll nationally dipshit.  ALL the polls were wrong even if national polling, which is fucking irrelevant anyway, were “right”.

try again fuck stick

The national polls were right, dummy. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

Posted
40 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also Onboard, Slorch, incredulity, this, and the rest of Surly’s Gray Old Pussies

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

Arthur Jones says hi. He's the Republican nominee for IL-3.

Corey Stewart in Virginia isn't much better.

Edited by David Dennison
  • Like 1
Posted

I recall the polls suggested Obama would win and the talking bimbos (male included) created and repeated some nonsense about how whites would poll one way but not actually vote for a black man.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I recall the polls suggested Obama would win and the talking bimbos (male included) created and repeated some nonsense about how whites would poll one way but not actually vote for a black man.
 

Unskew!!

Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Arthur Jones says hi. He's the Republican nominee for IL-3.

Corey Stewart in Virginia isn't much better.

Again disingenuous.

Jones isn’t endorsed or a part of the republican party.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The republican party has disavowed him.  But, you already know that.

 

Oh, that makes it better.

He's still the Republican nominee. A holocaust denier. 

That's the kind of person who runs as a Republican these days.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Laughable,

 

link to “self-professed Nazis”.

don’t bother with links to WaPo, CNN or MSNBC.

“Guys don’t bother linking real news sources. If it’s not fox or brietbart then it’s obviously a lie.”

  • Like 1
Posted

She whiffed pretty badly last week too in Kansas and Michigan. One of her candidates got through in Wa but 2nd Place in all Dem November race and the incumbent got 48%

Posted
This whole "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" narrative is a complete fabrication and intended to create another boogeyman where one doesn't exist.
 

That is their entire political party’s platform.
Posted
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

This whole "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" narrative is a complete fabrication and intended to create another boogeyman where one doesn't exist.

If the narrative is false then DNC chair, Tom Perez, is primarily responsible for creating the “bogeyman.” It was he who said AOC was “the future of our party.”  That’s not quite the same as saying "AOC is the new face of the Democratic Party" but it’s close enough to be conflated.

Posted (edited)

I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate. I can't believe how many people I've had to explain that to over the last year and a half.

Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit.

Anyways, carry on...

Edited by ndawg
  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I believe fivethirtyeight.com predicted that HRC had about a 75% chance of winning. Based on how close the electoral race was, and HRC winning the popular vote, the actual outcome suggests their prediction was accurate. I can't believe how many people I've had to explain that to over the last year and a half.

Now, I do recall that some news outlet predicted HRC had a 98% chance of winning. That was some bullshit.

Anyways, carry on...

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

Huh? That's an absurd conclusion to leap to, isn't it? I'm talking about the soundness of a prediction that has to account for a high amount of variability. Imagine someone just won the lottery. If someone else predicted, before the ticket was purchased, that the person playing the lottery was extremely unlikely to win it, they would have also made a sound prediction.

Edited by ndawg
Posted
43 minutes ago, slorch said:

that's aggy as fuck.

 

She barely lost, so they were right... LOlz.  75% right, at least.

No they were right because they accurately predicted what they measured, the popular vote. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No they were right because they accurately predicted what they measured, the popular vote. 

I believe Fivethirtyeight made an electoral vote prediction. Either way, it doesn't matter. @slorch either lacks the understanding of probability needed to recognize my point, or else he's so biased towards the narrative that liberals still aren't over Hillary losing that he flat out won't recognize it.

Posted
17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

slorch looks at probabilities like a drunk late night at a gas station rationalizing yet another lottery ticket purchase, "50 - 50 odds baby, you either win or you don't"

I understand probabilities.

 

I am saying they whiffed on it big time, and some folks are attempting to rationalize it( see also: aggy) because it was "close."

Posted

I suppose if I argue that the 1980 Soviet hockey team was objectively better than ours, and that our victory was actually a miracle, I'm just a butthurt commie or something.

Posted
21 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I believe Fivethirtyeight made an electoral vote prediction. Either way, it doesn't matter. @slorch either lacks the understanding of probability needed to recognize my point, or else he's so biased towards the narrative that liberals still aren't over Hillary losing that he flat out won't recognize it.

the bias is not mine.  It is the substance of your post.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I suppose if I argue that the 1980 Soviet hockey team was objectively better than ours, and that our victory was actually a miracle, I'm just a butthurt commie or something.

the Trump win is up there with the Miracle on Ice?  That probability was realistically in the 98 to 99% range.

Nice double down, my friend. 

Edited by slorch
Posted

Your bias directly caused you to misunderstand the substance of my post.

It might be the case that Trump had a 99% chance of winning. Or a 1% chance of winning. What matters is that the outcome cannot disprove any statistical prediction, but we can assess the extent to which the outcome and the prediction jive with one another. Guess what? Winning with a 25% of victory is extremely unsurprising.

Posted
19 minutes ago, slorch said:

the Trump win is up there with the Miracle on Ice?  That probability was realistically in the 98 to 99% range.

Nice double down, my friend. 

Can you set aside your biases in order to consider this objectively? I believe you completely misunderstood the analogy.



×
×
  • Create New...