Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • dxmnkd316
    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.
    In fact, I distinctly remember Nate in like September and October 2016 saying he really wanted to caution against the models saying 100%. Even his own model he was seriously warning that it was starting to show weakness towards November.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    It wasn't the pundits interpreting it that was the problem, it was Nate Silver and his ilk trying to be pundits that did it.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartanforlife4
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    Saw some polling for the Alaska special election next week. There's three candidates (one of the finalists dropped out): Republicans Nick Begich and Sarah Palin and Democrat Mary Peltola.

    Both polls had Peltola actually leading in the first round with Begich second and Palin third but Palin and Begich were within 1-2% of each other (41-30-29 in the first, 40-31-29 in the second).

    The interesting bit is the ranked choice, Begich is beating Peltola in both if Palin is eliminated but Peltola is beating Palin if Begich is eliminated.

    Pretty much confirms my "depends on who gets eliminated first" thoughts.
    A Begich is a Republican in Alaska? That's like reading about a Republican Kennedy in MA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    538 was fine, the interpretation of it by the pundits was what sucked.

    Math is funny. It works.
    It wasn't the pundits interpreting it that was the problem, it was Nate Silver and his ilk trying to be pundits that did it. The man got up his own butt and he hasn't stopped based on his COVID takes. YMMV.

    I like what 538 does in general, but they are not the end all be all and there have been quite a few similar stats groups or math nerds that have shown the flaws in their methodology going back a while. It is all well over my head when it comes to the math but sometimes it is fun to watch a good old fashioned nerd fight!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post

    So bet on the House and against the Senate because 538 ****ing sucks.

    (I am partially joking but only about the first part)
    538 was fine, the interpretation of it by the pundits was what sucked.

    Math is funny. It works.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X