• Announcements

    • rei

      Battle of the Anime Characters   02/10/17

      THE BATTLE OF THE ANIME CHARACTERS HAS BEGUN   Find it here http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?/forum/615-battle-of-the-anime-x/
Tygo

United States Presidential Election

Candidates   142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think SHOULD win?

  2. 2. Who do you think WILL win?

    • Bernie Sanders
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Donald Trump
    • Ted Cruz
    • Marco Rubio
    • Ben Carson
      0
    • John Kasich
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

3409 posts in this topic

TECHNICALLY the most accurate people were the simpsons writers in 2000

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't make it gay mikasa 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddam Winter every time I read a post from you I swear I get an aneurysm. Like how do you not see the double standards, hypocrisies, and ironies you post?

 

As for the polls, they are statistics and probabilities, not fortune telling. They tell the likelihood of events to happen, not accurately tell you what is going to happen. Not to mention, Nate Silver out of all the pollsters gave Trump the highest chance of winning. Donald Trump is simply an anomaly. He managed to bring out people who normally wouldnt to vote among other factors that usually wouldnt happen on election day. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Winter said:

Technically the most accurate person was Micheal Moore, who predicted the Rust Belt sweep

 

He gave Trump a 20% chance in the upper midwest mate, that's ignorance. If a guy is winning Iowa by 8, and you have him losing MI by 5, you don't know the region at all

 

The person who got the race most right, was surprise surprise the best pollster of 2014 Selzer & Company, Inc who nailed both the Florida and Iowa votes

 

Again you are ignorant on the matter. Nate Silver is not a pollster, only an analyst. The polls in that region were off, not the forecast.

 

In data analysis there is an apt saying for this occasion: garbage in, garbage out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy about seltzer tho

 

She said Trump would win FL by 2 check

Win Iowa by 8 check

 

Clinton wins nat by 2, we'll see

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jazz said:

 

Again you are ignorant on the matter. Nate Silver is not a pollster, only an analyst. The polls in that region were off, not the forecast.

 

In data analysis there is an apt saying for this occasion: garbage in, garbage out.

Yeah, and 538 put out a piece saying the polls were likely wrong in NV, due to the Hispanic Reid machine

 

They didn't have the insight to do that on WI/MI 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like honestly Winter, ok you thought that Trump was going to win, and he did, congrats to you etc, but you honestly know nothing about polls and mathematical modeling.

 

Statistically speaking, non-math "pundits" like Michael Moore are no more likely to be right about the election than chance.

 

Individual polls are terrible at predicting anything. Aggregating polls is much better. Just because poll aggregation was wrong this time just mean all of the sudden that it's garbage. Models aren't supposed to be right every single time. That's kind of what the word "model" means. Obviously, in any given year, one polling organization is going to be the closest to the actual result. But that doesn't mean that they're the king of polling and know how to poll better than everyone else.

 

In the long run, taking the analytical approach is superior, and Nate Silver is literally the best statistician in the world (if you deny that, you are simply not familiar with his previous work). The same type of people who ignored the polling averages and looked at economics and tried to guess demographic turnouts also predicted a Romney win in 2012. And sometimes, they will be right and the polling aggregators will be wrong. But the vast majority of the time that won't be the case.

 

10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ACP said:

Like honestly Winter, ok you thought that Trump was going to win, and he did, congrats to you etc, but you honestly know nothing about polls and mathematical modeling.

 

Statistically speaking, non-math "pundits" like Michael Moore are no more likely to right about the election than chance.

 

Individual polls are terrible at predicting anything. Aggregating polls is much better. Just because poll aggregation was wrong this time just mean all of the sudden that it's garbage. Models aren't supposed to be right every single time. That's kind of what the word "model" means. Obviously, in any given year, one polling organization is going to be the closest to the actual result. But that doesn't mean that they're the king of polling and know how to poll better than everyone else.

 

In the long run, taking the analytical approach is superior, at Nate Silver is literally the best statistician in the world (if you deny that, you are simply not familiar with his previous work). The same type of people who ignored the polling averages and looked at economics and tried to guess demographic turnouts also predicted a Romney win in 2012. And sometimes, they will be right and the polling aggregators will be wrong. But the vast majority of the time that won't be the case.

 

Look, all I'm saying, and Nate even noted it now, is that based on the Numbers out of IA and OH, they should have doubted the rust belt, they did not.

 

That's a shortfalling from a guy who nailed the fact that Trump would lose NV when polls showed him up 4-6

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mmf said:

i have negative faith in this ever happening but it would be really funny to see wumbo have to relocate after all of the shit he's undoubtedly giving people for wanting to leave US after election results

Quote

 

(neg rep) TRUMPOLOGIST

 

 

#NOTURPRESIDENT

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mmf said:

 

#NOTURPRESIDENT

I thought we agreed not to bitch about neg votes 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bbbbut winter said EV a lot 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Winter said:

Look, all I'm saying, and Nate even noted it now, is that based on the Numbers out of IA and OH, they should have doubted the rust belt, they did not.

 

That's a shortfalling from a guy who nailed the fact that Trump would lose NV when polls showed him up 4-6

The polls showed Nevada virtually tied. His projection reflected that (gave Clinton something like a 60% chance to win).

 

The polls were pretty consistent in showing Clinton winning Michigan, etc. But the polls also showed Bernie losing there, and they were wrong. Obviously it was a hard region to poll this year. I'm not enough of an expert in this sort of thing to say why. Hopefully we'll find out, and we won't make the same mistake in 2020.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump can build the wall by executive order by just re-programming money within the Immigration Service

 

Will be interesting since (realistic) wall construction estimates top $16-20B & 2016 @ICEgov annual budget is ~$42B.

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Winter said:

I thought we agreed not to bitch about neg votes 

just poking fun calm down

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's notable that the polls also overestimated the democrat's chances of winning back the senate this year (they didn't). The polls also overestimated the Democrats chances of winning state governor positions and congress positions in 2014 (the Dems underperformed their polls by 2% or so iirc). I can't say why this is the case, and there's no guarantee that this is some kind of long-term trend. It could be pure coincidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This election was not a vindication of Trump. He is still a bad person disliked by most of the country. He has a chance to improve his standing, but he also has a chance to make it much worse. He will be in the spotlight now, and we will be scrutinizing him even more closely than we were before. We will be vocal and vigilant.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if his approval rating never cracks 50%.

 

Just because he won does not make him a good person or a good president. That's why I still denounce him. I accept that he's legally our country's president, but I do not respect him. I do not have to. He is not my president and probably never will be. I don't feel any allegiance to him.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ACP said:

It's notable that the polls also overestimated the democrat's chances of winning back the senate this year (they didn't). The polls also overestimated the Democrats chances of winning state governor positions and congress positions in 2014 (the Dems underperformed their polls by 2% or so iirc). I can't say why this is the case, and there's no guarantee that this is some kind of long-term trend. It could be pure coincidence.

White women disliked saying they were supporting Trump when called, but voted for him when the time came

 

Same with Black men

 

Both groups performed about 8% Higher than what pollsters thought they would for Trump

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build the wall, lose the next election. Nobody wants that shit. What is this 6th century China!? It won't even do what you expect it to do. What a grotesque waste of money.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Winter said:

White women disliked saying they were supporting Trump when called, but voted for him when the time came

 

Same with Black men

 

Both groups performed about 8% Higher than what pollsters thought they would for Trump

It's not necessarily the case that people were lying to pollsters. Realize that minority groups are notoriously difficult to poll, and in a country with a growing minority population, this makes polls more prone to error than before. Some polling organizations like LA Times actually overestimated Trump's support with black voters.

 

The simpliest explanation of "oh, I guess people were just lying to the pollsters then" is usually not the best one. Just as an example, realize that studies asking people whether or not they have done cocaine in their life are usually pretty accurate. I find it pretty hard to believe that people are willing to admit that they did cocaine to a pollster, but not willing to admit that they are voting for Trump.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also realize that the only reason that we know now that 12% of black people voted for Trump is because of exit polls. Why would someone tell the truth during an exit poll but not during a pre-election poll?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My couch professor hypothesis on the polls being wrong in the Midwest is two fold:

 

(1) Pollsters use party registration to correct for imbalances in sampling. Good idea when registration is stable, bad idea when people are switching parties unidirectionally.

 

(2) Undecideds went for Trump, for whatever reason. Possibly due to the Midwest being the hardest hit by economic factors, so they simply wanted change. These people were not lying to pollsters, they always wanted to vote but remained uncommitted to the end, but they behaved noticeably differently than other undecideds in other regions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely sucks that all the racists, homophobes, sexists and xenophobes in the USA feel empowered to share their disgusting views after a Trump win.  The bigger problem, of course, is that these feelings are not something newly generated by Trump (or Pence, or any politician) but rather are feelings that people have been forced to bury (because they're socially unacceptable) and the election of a politically incorrect president has made people think their twisted views are OK.  Hopefully this doesn't last too long.  I don't think Trump has smashed good society's values, he's simply given confidence to silent racists/homophobes/etc.

 

I'm pretty sure when this thread was made I filled in the poll with Bernie as my "should win" and Trump as my "will win."  My rationale was that Democrats would choose Hilary as their champion and that will be their downfall.  Instead of being so enthralled with the possibility of the first female president they should have realized how many American people wanted change.  I only think Hilary was as close as she was because Trump was such a loose cannon.

 

The results are, in my opinion, a big fuck you from the American people to politicians.  Anything but the status quo, and Hilary coming back is just 4-8 more years of the same.  In Canada we did a similar thing.  We elected a supply drama teacher to Prime Minister because "he wasn't the other guy."  He promised a lot of changes, was very charismatic and had brand recognition.  Even though he had no experience and wasn't a typical politician he crushed the election.  People really liked that he wasn't a typical politician.  The difference is that our guy has great character.

 

Also, interesting point, Colin Kaepernick, Mr. "I kneel during the anthem because I want to be a voice for change," didn't even vote.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada PM Trudeau says ready to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump

 

It begins 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.