quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Still so butthurt Calling utter bollocks on that, it was only 3 days before that Silver starting tightening the polls and in Nate Silver's own words "I acted like a pundit and screwed up on Donald Trump". The guy himself admits he didn't see it coming so again, take the self righteous stick out of your arse and move on as you certainly didn't see it coming. Let it go, I admit Trump won and we didn't see it coming, Hilary lost by the largest popular vote margin in history and you certainly didn't fucking call that, did you? And neither did your beloved Nate silver. You just look bitter at this point.

Call utter bollocks on whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact you're a fucking imbecile who has been spectacularly wrong about pretty much everything this past election cycle, while several of us on here were absolutely correct in arguing that the race was much closer than you thought remotely possible.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Call utter bollocks on whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact you're a fucking imbecile who has been spectacularly wrong about pretty much everything this past election cycle, while several of us on here were absolutely correct in arguing that the race was much closer than you thought remotely possible.

You're just affirming your bollocks.

Closer than you thought? So now it's shades of wrong? You were closer to being less wrong? Fuck, listen to yourself - it's nearly as cringeworthy as Nate's election night interview.

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).

I still don't get why you're desperately defending Nate Silver who got his arse handed to him on election night, with you and I both along with it.

At least I can take solace in the fact he had every tool at his disposal, does it for a living at and got it horribly wrong and I'm not that daft for following him, but you still can't admit he got it wrong lol. Just deal with it already, fuckwit.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You're just affirming your bollocks. Closer than you thought? So now it's shades of wrong? You were closer to being less wrong? Fuck, listen to yourself - it's nearly as cringeworthy as Nate's election night interview. 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). I still don't get why you're desperately defending Nate Silver who got his arse handed to him on election night, with you and I both along with it. At least I can take solace in the fact he had every tool at his disposal, does it for a living at and got it horribly wrong and I'm not that daft for following him, but you still can't admit he got it wrong lol. Just deal with it already, fuckwit.

You know, RANN, I really admire your attempt to play both sides of the table here, but it just isn't going to work. You claimed the night of, and the night before, that 538 was fudging the numbers to make it look like Trump had a chance, and then you claimed immediately afterwards that they had done a terrible job and had completely underestimated Trump. It's just laughable from the perspective of anyone without the sad emotional attachment to certainty that you clearly have. 'Holy shit, Donny's done!' 'Oh man, the Latino's will tip it!' 'Insurmountable lead!' '... !!!! .... !!!'

You may think that it shows that you have 'balls' by making such strong claims, but really you just look like a fool by making strong claims about things that are very uncertain.

We're now quite literally at the point we were last time, where you were calling 538's forecast wrong and I tried explaining to you that you have no understanding whatsoever of forecasts or, really, statistical analysis. I still think my metaphor last time was the best I can come up; 538 said Trump had a 29% chance of winning: that is analogous to watching baseball and seeing someone batting .290 come up to the plate. When they connect with the ball and get a hit, you aren't that surprised - that's a good batting average.

Right now, however, I'm not trying to defend Nate Silver (who I think went too far into punditry last election, and too far from plain statistics and forecasting). I'm just pointing out that you are a fucking moron. You can claim all you want that we were all wrong - to give yourself some solace that, you know, you are an intelligent man - but the facts are that you were colossally wrong, while those of us who gave more measured responses and, in the days before the election, pointed out that the polls were close and that we shouldn't count on Clinton winning, were ultimately proven right - we said she didn't have a guaranteed win, you basically crowed her victory from the rooftops.

The more you call me a fuckwit, the more you just look like a top-shelf retard. And the funny thing is, if you just had a little bit more humility and a little less sense of your own intelligence, I'm sure we'd all be agreeing about a whole host of normative issues. But until you get that working-class, un-educated chip off your shoulder, we never will. Shame!

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

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.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

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.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

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.