Jump to content

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

markstanco

By markstanco
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

oh, and to add, let's offer up a 'comparable' analogy reversal and see how it fits.  who's the aoc of the right?  jim jordan?  matt gaetz? this is basically like if there was a huge earthquake he

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

some people see 99% and consider that absolutism.  i am one of those people. this is not your wife grabbing your cell phone that you left in the other room.  this is not a quick favor.  this is a

RomaVicta
RomaVicta

Yes, of course. She is the only woman or woman of color the left right (edit) focuses their ire on. There are no other examples. Great point. It's really all intellectual and rational. And usually ver

Posted Images

Incredulity

Incredulity 11532

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's OK to be wrong.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18603

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cacti

Cacti 191

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1242

Posted
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.

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...