TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Presidential Inauguration
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You certainly didn't call a win, neither did I and the first flicker of it being "tighter" was a whole 72 hours before the end of an 18 month election cycle (by Silver's own admission).

Yeah, because the polls tightened considerably at the end. You and Woony shot your mouths off about how there were practically no floating voters and that the poll swings were pure media manipulation. It's not just that you argued that Nate Silver's odds were wrong. It's not even that you backed the guys giving Clinton a 98.6% chance of victory. It's that you specifically argued against Silver's entire methodology.

It's all there in the thread, for everyone to read. You made a massive, conclusive statement about the election, the media coverage, the behaviour of the nation's voters. And you were completely wrong on every single count.

I'm not going to rehash this pitiful debacle with either of you and I have to admit I couldn't even be bothered to read your posts, because the first two lines are just more of the same explanatory and apologetic bollocks.

Just deal with it. Silver fucked it right up after a year plus of intense analytics with every single tool at his disposal.

All of us were making assumptions, largely on his input but also others, which turned out to be completely fucking wrong, and wrong on an epic scale. You're trying to split hairs about how wrong it was. I really coulnd't give a fuck.

It certainly wasn't predicted anywhere at anytime that Trump was going to win the electoral by such a huge margin, nor that at the same time Hilary would have the largest margin in losing history on the pop vote.

So stop trying to guild the fucking lilly. At least I straight up admitted right on the night (and ever since) how wrong I got it once it became apparent that Silver (et al) had been so horrifically wrong despite a ticker tape of prediction to the contrary and you can;t argue that with a straight face.

You guys saying a tightening (and let's not forget, it STILL predicted a loss for Trump) suddenly means you somehow called it or are vindicated from the error is just silly.

I'm OK with it; I believed Silver and all the other pollsters from all the data I'd followed on them for a year and they had it staggeringly wrong.

The poster boy of polling got publicly shamed in the most public way, so spare us the sanctimonious and desperate explanations of why poll forecasting is still valid in it's current form. The level of punditry was inexcusable and anyone that believed Silver's predictions (and frankly every other poll that wasn't run by a fringe lunatic faction) got it wrong, and so did every virtually every other pollster and news outlet. It was a shock victory that showed how flawed the statistical analysis polling market it.

Honestly, just deal with it and move the fuck on.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN All of us were making assumptions, largely on his input but also others, which turned out to be completely fucking wrong, and wrong on an epic scale. You're trying to split hairs about how wrong it was. I really coulnd't give a fuck.

Nope. Jack and I weren't wrong, we said it was going to be a close race; you were, you said Clinton was going to crush him.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm OK with it.

Clearly.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN It was a shock victory that showed how flawed the statistical analysis polling market it.

No, it was a surprise victory that showed how little most people understand statistics and forecasting.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm not going to rehash this pitiful debacle with either of you and I have to admit I couldn't even be bothered to read your posts

You clearly didn't read my posts on election night either, since you're still claiming I got anything wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J, Nov-07-2016 19:26 The fact is, Trump is still in with a realistic chance of winning the election.

Rann u must be so itchy with all that sand in your vagina.

...do yourself a favour. grab a toilet brush and douse it in some bleach. then jump in a hot shower and fist yourself really deep for at least 10 minutes.

otherwise you may get crabz

quote:

Originally posted by Lews No, it was a surprise victory that showed how little most people understand statistics and forecasting.

And the resolve of rural and conservative Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen And the resolve of rural and conservative Americans.

Weren't you one of the people claiming Clinton was just as bad an option as Trump? I seem to recall you posting something to that nature, in the now-deleted original 2016 Election thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Nope. Jack and I weren't wrong, we said it was going to be a close race; you were, you said Clinton was going to crush him.

I'm not going to rehash it. I believed she was going to beat trump by a wide margin, you thought she was going to win by a small margin. Neither of those predications turned out to be remotely correct, and that's why I'm saying you're splitting hairs and just trying to save face. It's over, move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews No, it was a surprise victory that showed how little most people understand statistics and forecasting.

Well said, especially in relation to all the major pollsters, with Nate Silver as their figure head who got it so spectacularly wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Weren't you one of the people claiming Clinton was just as bad an option as Trump? I seem to recall you posting something to that nature, in the now-deleted original 2016 Election thread.

I'm not going to rehash that either, as it seems pointless now. I actually went to my voting station last year and voted third party out of neutrality. I was more concerned over my state's propositions (So no I don't believe I wasted my vote), but I am still willing to give Trump a chance and see what he can get done while in office.

What I am tired of hearing is everybody blaming everything else as to why this man became President. Oh it's bad polling! Oh it's the media! Oh wealth disparity! Oh the Russians! It just couldn't be that some people in this country might have actually voted for him, favored him more than Clinton?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/...-for-trump.html

quote:

Knoxville, Iowa � One recent morning, I sat near two young men at a coffee shop here whom I�ve known since they were little boys. Now about 18, they pushed away from the table, and one said: �Let�s go to work. Let the liberals sleep in.� The other nodded. They�re hard workers. As a kid, one washed dishes, took orders and swept the floor at a restaurant. Every summer, the other picked sweet corn by hand at dawn for a farm stand and for grocery stores, and then went to work all day on his parents� farm. Now one is a welder, and the other is in his first year at a state university on an academic scholarship. They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America. They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture � not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments � that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous. Who are these rural, red-county people who brought Mr. Trump into power? I�m a native Iowan and reporter in rural Marion County, Iowa. I consider myself fairly liberal. My family has mostly voted Democratic since long before I was born. To be honest, for years, even I have struggled to understand how these conservative friends and neighbors I respect � and at times admire � can think so differently from me, not to mention how over 60 percent of voters in my county could have chosen Mr. Trump. Political analysts have talked about how ignorance, racism, sexism, nationalism, Islamophobia, economic disenfranchisement and the decline of the middle class contributed to the popularity of Mr. Trump in rural America. But this misses the deeper cultural factors that shape the thinking of the conservatives who live here. For me, it took a 2015 pre-caucus stop in Pella by J. C. Watts, a Baptist minister raised in the small town of Eufaula, Okla., who was a Republican congressman from 1995 to 2003, to begin to understand my neighbors � and most likely other rural Americans as well. �The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,� said Mr. Watts, who was in the area to campaign for Senator Rand Paul. �We are born bad,� he said and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly � they are born knowing how to do that. �We teach them how to be good,� he said. �We become good by being reborn � born again.� He continued: �Democrats believe that we are born good, that we create God, not that he created us. If we are our own God, as the Democrats say, then we need to look at something else to blame when things go wrong � not us.� Mr. Watts talked about the 2015 movie theater shooting in Lafayette, La., in which two people were killed. Mr. Watts said that Republicans knew that the gunman was a bad man, doing a bad thing. Democrats, he added, �would look for other causes � that the man was basically good, but that it was the guns, society or some other place where the blame lies and then they will want to control the guns, or something else � not the man.� Republicans, he said, don�t need to look anywhere else for the blame. Hearing Mr. Watts was an epiphany for me. For the first time I had a glimpse of where many of my conservative friends and neighbors were coming from. I thought, no wonder Republicans and Democrats can�t agree on things like gun control, regulations or the value of social programs. We live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles. Overlay this philosophical perspective on the American rural-urban divides of history, economy and geography, and the conservative individual responsibility narrative becomes even more powerful. In my experience, the urban-rural divide isn�t really so much a red state versus blue state issue, it�s red county versus blue county. Rural Iowans have more in common with the rural residents of Washington State and New Mexico � places I�ve also lived � than with the residents of Des Moines, Seattle and Albuquerque. Look at a national map of which counties went for Democrats and which for Republicans: Overwhelmingly the blue counties are along waterways, where early river transportation encouraged the formation of cities, and surround state capitals. This is also where most investment in infrastructure and services is made. Rural Americans recognize that this is how it must be, as the cities are where most of the people are, yet it�s a sore spot. In state capitols across America, lawmakers spend billions of dollars to take a few seconds off a city dweller�s commute to his office, while rural counties� farm-to-market roads fall into disrepair. Some of the paved roads in my region are no longer maintained and are reverting to gravel. For a couple of generations now, services that were once scattered across rural areas have increasingly been consolidated in urban areas, and rural towns die. It�s all done in the name of efficiency. In cities, firefighters and E.M.T.s are professionals whose departments are funded by local, state and federal tax dollars. Rural America relies on volunteers. If I have a serious heart attack at home, I�ll be cold to the touch by the time the volunteer ambulance crew from a town 22 miles away gets here. Urban police officers have the latest in computer equipment and vehicles, while small-town cops go begging. In this view, blue counties are where most of our tax dollars are spent, and that�s where all of our laws are written and passed. To rural Americans, sometimes it seems our taxes mostly go to making city residents live better. We recognize that the truth is more complex, particularly when it comes to social programs, but it�s the perception that matters � certainly to the way most people vote. To make matters worse, jobs are continuing to move to metropolitan areas. Small-town chamber of commerce directors and mayors still have big dreams, and use their perkiest grins and tax abatements to try to lure new businesses, only to see their hopes dashed, time and again. Many towns with a rich history and strong community pride are already dead; their citizens just don�t know it yet. Many moderate rural Republicans became supporters of Mr. Trump when he released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees who would allow the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade. They also think the liberal worldview creates unnecessary rules and regulations that cripple the economy and take away good jobs that may belong to them or their neighbor. Public school systems and colleges are liberal tools of indoctrination that go after what we love and value most � our children. Some of what liberals worry about they see as pure nonsense. When you are the son or daughter of a carpenter or mechanic and a housewife or secretary who lives paycheck to paycheck, who can�t afford to send kids to college, as many rural residents are, white privilege is meaningless and abstract. It�s not just older people. The two young men at breakfast exemplify a younger generation with this view. When Ted Cruz campaigned in a neighboring town in 2015, I watched as a couple of dozen grade-school pupils sat at his feet, as if they were at a children�s service at church. His campaign speech was nearly a sermon, and the children listened wide-eyed when he told them the world is a scary place, and it�s godly men like him who are going to save them from the evils of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and their fellow Democrats. While many blame poor decisions by Mrs. Clinton for her loss, in an environment like this, the Democratic candidate probably didn�t matter. And the Democratic Party may not for generations to come. The Republican brand is strong in rural America � perhaps even strong enough to withstand a disastrous Trump presidency. Rural conservatives feel that their world is under siege, and that Democrats are an enemy to be feared and loathed. Given the philosophical premises Mr. Watts presented as the difference between Democrats and Republicans, reconciliation seems a long way off.

No, it's the Russians. They did this to us. Damn commies.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm not going to rehash it. I believed she was going to beat trump by a wide margin, you thought she was going to win by a small margin. Neither of those predications turned out to be remotely correct, and that's why I'm saying you're splitting hairs and just trying to save face. It's over, move on.

I would invite you to find a post by me pre-election where I said she would win by a small margin. Spoiler alert: you won't.

My last post pre-election-count on TA was this (in response to you and Woony talking about how the polls/forecasts were all skewed to make things look close):

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Not to talk too much about statistics, but you're all idiots. On that note, let's just sit back, pray to Jesus/vegan-alternative-of-your-choice, and see what happens,

Not exactly screaming confidence that she was going to win, was I?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Well said, especially in relation to all the major pollsters, with Nate Silver as their figure head who got it so spectacularly wrong.

Well, you should note there is a difference between pollsters and forecasters. Silver isn't a pollster, he's a forecaster. And as I've said many times on here - Silver's forecast and statistics was right, but his punditry was wrong (the article's he wrote). I'm not entirely sure whether it was driven by his desire for attention/clicks or if it was in response to people asking him to write more, but he should have just stuck with the numbers.

The major pollsters didn't actually get it that wrong, if you look at the national polling (and especially if you take into account the margin of error, which most people ignore, because they don't understand statistics). The problems was with the state polls. Even there, though, it's difficult to say the polls got it spectacularly wrong. Where we do have polls, they clearly tightened dramatically after Comey's email announcement. Many states, however, didn't give us much information after that. That was a rather big game-changer, it appears.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.