Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post

    I have watched every show Stewart has done since the Young Comedians special including his original run on the old Comedy Central Short Attention Span Theater (including his crappy MTV talk show) and I am 42. Just saying.
    Yeah, he only left the Daily Show in 2015. Say a kid watched it for all of high school and Stewart left when they graduated, they’re only 25ish now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    Jon's audience is over 50 now. Remember, he started at TDS a quarter of a century ago.
    I have watched every show Stewart has done since the Young Comedians special including his original run on the old Comedy Central Short Attention Span Theater (including his crappy MTV talk show) and I am 42. Just saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post
    Looks like SinemaĆ¢??s opening bid on the Manchin/Schumer bill is nixing the nixing of the carried interest loophole, and receiving $5 billion for drought resiliency in Arizona.
    Wait, she wants to close the loophole or leave it open?

    nevermind. I see the double mixing.

    Tell her no dice and very publicly offer to double the drought resilience to $10B

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by psych View Post
    Looks like Sinema’s opening bid on the Manchin/Schumer bill is nixing the nixing of the carried interest loophole, and receiving $5 billion for drought resiliency in Arizona.
    Could be worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • psych
    replied
    Looks like Sinema’s opening bid on the Manchin/Schumer bill is nixing the nixing of the carried interest loophole, and receiving $5 billion for drought resiliency in Arizona.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Ok, just looked at the 2016 numbers vs. the polling averages. Where the polls missed was on Trump's share of the undecideds. They almost all swung towards Trump. And this is where the tail risk comes from. If your undecideds are fairly large relative to the margin, winner-take-all makes insane swings.

    Of the states where the result was flipped from where the polls predicted:
    • ME-2
      • Clinton: Polled 41.1, Actual 41.0, error 0.2%
      • Trump: Polled 40.5%, Actual 51.3%, error 20.9%
    • Wisconsin:
      • Clinton: 46.6, 46.5, 0.2%
      • Trump: 41.6, 47.2, 11.8%
    • Michigan:
      • Clinton: 45.7, 47.3, 3.4%
      • Trump: 42.5, 47.5, 10.5%
    • Pennsylvania:
      • Clinton: 46.5, 47.5. 2.0%
      • Trump: 43.5, 48.2, 9.8%
    • North Carolina:
      • Clinton: 46.4, 46.2, 0.6%
      • Trump: 45.3, 49.8, 9.0%
    • Florida:
      • Clinton: 46.4, 47.8, 3.0%
      • Trump: 45.5, 49.0, 7.2%
    So what I find interesting is that they all very much nailed the Clinton share of the vote, but badly, badly missed on the trump side. I suspect, and quickly looking at the data, almost all of that came from overestimating Gary Johnson. MN had a polling average of 7%+ for Johnson. In the end, he only grabbed half that.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post

    Speaking as someone who followed Nate religiously on more than just his web site, I will just say you don't understand what I am getting at and that is on me because I explained it terribly thanks to lack of sleep the last 5 days which is on me. His 2020 "15%" prediction was spot on (I posted it here almost in real time) so that isn't the problem either. (dx I am not dinging him at all for 2016 he had no way to know that people were lying to pollsters about who they would vote for or that Comey would tank Hillary)

    Nate's issue is he doesn't speak about enough that the math only works if the basic fundamentals of the numbers are correct. They almost never are, and certainly aren't even close anymore. Just because he has a formula that in theory works, doesn't mean the answer he gets is right. It just means it should be correct. He, like many of his ilk, are trying to quantify things that cannot be completely quantified and will almost certainly not be understood on its face by the average person watching CNN. Like college hockey and their algorithm...sure it is based on math but that doesn't mean it is giving us the best field or even the correct one. It only works if all the data is correct. Polling is a joke these days and no matter how much you try and tweak it to offset it there is just variables that cannot be predicted. (many of the problems are exasperated in local or state elections where polling is even less so one weird poll can gum up the works like it did say in Minnesota when a BS poll showed Tina Smith tied with Jason Lewis...it can get just too volatile) In 2016 it was the silent Trump voter, in 2020 it was quite a few different ones, in 2022 who knows what it will be. We often don't learn what the issue is until the post mortem. That is what he tried explaining in his Election Eve blog in 2020 but by then the narrative was already out there that his numbers showed a likely Biden victory and the Senate being better than 50/50.

    Now in and of itself that is fine, but the problem is he knew that his numbers were being used to prove things they weren't proving and he never corrected those people for it. (and even promoted it at times especially on Twitter) Plus after 2016 he either didn't make corrections to his model or the corrections he made weren't enough to offset what has become apparent to many out there; that polls are just fundamentally flawed at this point so weighting them and aggregating them too will be flawed in the same way. He hedged late with his predictions (which again I have no problem with because his "15%" scenario played out almost to a T) but he doubled down on how that proved his system worked and then really gave himself a self colonoscopy. He never seemed to accept that the real world outside the numbers were showing that the numbers can't predict things in the way he thinks they can and how most people believe they are. When other stats nerds (people way smarter than I could even pretend to be) started pointing that out to him asking questions he went defensive and tripled down which flies in the face of what he was trying to do in the first place. He hid that well on his site but it was all over Twitter for weeks. Then, when the people who specifically follow elections started pointing out the flaws in his system and logic it got way to technical for people like me but needless to say his reputation is not sterling. (even worse with his COVID nonsense)

    If you need it broken down better put it this way...the average person has very little idea what probability is or how it works. They believe that if you flip a coin 10 times it should hit 5 each way because that is what basic math tells them. Then there is the next level of person who gets the basics but can't see the forest from the trees. These are the people who play roulette and have math strategies to try and beat the game. They see 4 reds in a row and bet black hoping to hit it based on the numbers. (my buddy does this it can be infuriating to watch) More often than not they will win if they do it right, but they get super upset when things go sideways, which sooner or later they do because probability is not a guarantee. You can flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads even if the odds are stupidly long. These two groups believe when the longshot hits it has to be a fraud because the math says it shouldnt happen! (you would think the word probability would be the tell) Nate used to factor that in to his commentary and somehow that got lost along the way. Now if you want to just be rando Twitter guy doing this as a hobby that is cool. There are lots of them and they are fun reads and know their stuff. If you are going to act as the face of Election Analytics (whether he meant to or not he became that after I think 2012) and write countless pieces and have your work referenced by pretty much all the news/media/pundits then you should really always remember to speak to the lowest common denominator.

    The problem isn't the math, the problem is that math cannot tell you enough to get the full picture...especially when you can't even trust the data being used in the math. I like what he is trying to get at but much like sports analytics the nerds seem to forget there are factors no math will be able to deal with and that should be addressed. YMMV.

    (we probably should not continue this here and I apologize for veering the thread this way)
    The polls weren't wrong in 2016. They weren't wrong in 2020 either. Most were within the margins for error. The popular vote was something like a percent or two off estimates. THe problem is that fat tail error and the all-or-nothing system we have in 96% of our states' elections combine to create extremely dramatic shifts with only small changes in voting totals. Something like 160,000 people decided the 2016 election.


    In the Tina Smith election, the poll you're referring to said Smith was +1 on Lewis (43-42) with a 5-point MOE. The next poll from them was 45-42 (+3) with a 5-point MOE as well. The election result was 48.7-43.5 (+5.2). I'd say they got it right. Only a handful of polls landed closer to the pin. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ate/minnesota/

    If you look at the firms with A- or better, they were all very close to +5.2.

    Fivethirtyeight projected a 12.3-point margin for Smith. What's interesting is the algorithm was beat by the polls in this case
    • Lite projection (polls only): +8.3
    • Classic (polls, fundraising, past voting patterns and more): +9.2
    • Deluxe (Classic+Expert Opinions): +12.3
    The Math Wins (this race)

    Looking at the presidential election in MN, the polling average was 51.8-42.7 (+9.1). The result was 52.4-45.3 (+7.1).

    Digging deeper into the data, of the states with more than 25 polls conducted in October or later, only two of the 21 had errors greater than 3.5%: Montana at 11.9% (polls underestimated Trump) and Wisconsin at 5.4% (underestimated trump). The median error was only 3%.

    If you sort the states by error, the trumpiest states had the highest errors. Only RI, WI, and IL broke the top 20.

    (All numbers are for the 2020 election)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    Nate's issue is he doesn't speak about enough that the math only works if the basic fundamentals of the numbers are correct.
    I do not agree with you. Granted I have not read 538 much since 2020, but in my experience both Nate and the guy who was his mini-me for a while whose name I cannot recall (Cohen maybe?) went out of their way to try to educate the Great Unwashed about probability and statistics and the environmental assumptions that make the math have some semblance of reflection of reality. The connection between the target, the concept, and the metric is fraught philosophically, and yes of course the average dolt will never grasp the nuance, just as believes in streaks or clutch hitting or the gambler's fallacy. But Nate tries, hard.

    I don't care about his rock star image or whatever it was, I only care about the methodology, and in a kingdom of the blind he was the only one-eyed man for a long, long time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    I get that but he carries more weight with the average voter under 50 than anyone.
    Jon's audience is over 50 now. Remember, he started at TDS a quarter of a century ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    Just think, one out of work liberal comedian just did more for American veterans than all Republicans, combined, for the past fifty years.

    Everyone in the military should vote blue. Red only wants you to bleed for their profits, which they will then never share with you and in fact screw you in the tax code to protect.
    When Stewart has a bone to pick he does it better than most. He did the same for 9/11 responders when the GOP held up their health care as well.

    Why Stewart relegated himself to a how on Apple I will never know. If he didn't want to be on TDS anymore I get that but he carries more weight with the average voter under 50 than anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    No. Just no. You are wrong on the math. Nate said "there's a 15% chance," and that chance occurred. That is how math works. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.
    Speaking as someone who followed Nate religiously on more than just his web site, I will just say you don't understand what I am getting at and that is on me because I explained it terribly thanks to lack of sleep the last 5 days which is on me. His 2020 "15%" prediction was spot on (I posted it here almost in real time) so that isn't the problem either. (dx I am not dinging him at all for 2016 he had no way to know that people were lying to pollsters about who they would vote for or that Comey would tank Hillary)

    Nate's issue is he doesn't speak about enough that the math only works if the basic fundamentals of the numbers are correct. They almost never are, and certainly aren't even close anymore. Just because he has a formula that in theory works, doesn't mean the answer he gets is right. It just means it should be correct. He, like many of his ilk, are trying to quantify things that cannot be completely quantified and will almost certainly not be understood on its face by the average person watching CNN. Like college hockey and their algorithm...sure it is based on math but that doesn't mean it is giving us the best field or even the correct one. It only works if all the data is correct. Polling is a joke these days and no matter how much you try and tweak it to offset it there is just variables that cannot be predicted. (many of the problems are exasperated in local or state elections where polling is even less so one weird poll can gum up the works like it did say in Minnesota when a BS poll showed Tina Smith tied with Jason Lewis...it can get just too volatile) In 2016 it was the silent Trump voter, in 2020 it was quite a few different ones, in 2022 who knows what it will be. We often don't learn what the issue is until the post mortem. That is what he tried explaining in his Election Eve blog in 2020 but by then the narrative was already out there that his numbers showed a likely Biden victory and the Senate being better than 50/50.

    Now in and of itself that is fine, but the problem is he knew that his numbers were being used to prove things they weren't proving and he never corrected those people for it. (and even promoted it at times especially on Twitter) Plus after 2016 he either didn't make corrections to his model or the corrections he made weren't enough to offset what has become apparent to many out there; that polls are just fundamentally flawed at this point so weighting them and aggregating them too will be flawed in the same way. He hedged late with his predictions (which again I have no problem with because his "15%" scenario played out almost to a T) but he doubled down on how that proved his system worked and then really gave himself a self colonoscopy. He never seemed to accept that the real world outside the numbers were showing that the numbers can't predict things in the way he thinks they can and how most people believe they are. When other stats nerds (people way smarter than I could even pretend to be) started pointing that out to him asking questions he went defensive and tripled down which flies in the face of what he was trying to do in the first place. He hid that well on his site but it was all over Twitter for weeks. Then, when the people who specifically follow elections started pointing out the flaws in his system and logic it got way to technical for people like me but needless to say his reputation is not sterling. (even worse with his COVID nonsense)

    If you need it broken down better put it this way...the average person has very little idea what probability is or how it works. They believe that if you flip a coin 10 times it should hit 5 each way because that is what basic math tells them. Then there is the next level of person who gets the basics but can't see the forest from the trees. These are the people who play roulette and have math strategies to try and beat the game. They see 4 reds in a row and bet black hoping to hit it based on the numbers. (my buddy does this it can be infuriating to watch) More often than not they will win if they do it right, but they get super upset when things go sideways, which sooner or later they do because probability is not a guarantee. You can flip a coin 100 times and get 100 heads even if the odds are stupidly long. These two groups believe when the longshot hits it has to be a fraud because the math says it shouldnt happen! (you would think the word probability would be the tell) Nate used to factor that in to his commentary and somehow that got lost along the way. Now if you want to just be rando Twitter guy doing this as a hobby that is cool. There are lots of them and they are fun reads and know their stuff. If you are going to act as the face of Election Analytics (whether he meant to or not he became that after I think 2012) and write countless pieces and have your work referenced by pretty much all the news/media/pundits then you should really always remember to speak to the lowest common denominator.

    The problem isn't the math, the problem is that math cannot tell you enough to get the full picture...especially when you can't even trust the data being used in the math. I like what he is trying to get at but much like sports analytics the nerds seem to forget there are factors no math will be able to deal with and that should be addressed. YMMV.

    (we probably should not continue this here and I apologize for veering the thread this way)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Just think, one out of work liberal comedian just did more for American veterans than all Republicans, combined, for the past fifty years.

    Everyone in the military should vote blue. Red only wants you to bleed for their profits, which they will then never share with you and in fact screw you in the tax code to protect.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    John Stewart just beat the GOP like a conservative's step child.
    This exchange is incredibly sweet.

    https://twitter.com/SenatorTester/st...72014660321280

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    John Stewart just beat the GOP like a conservative's step child.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    Yeah, Nate's been unbearable about Covid, but 2016 is not something to ding him on.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X