Fixed. Trump's inane bullsh-t drives traffic to Twitter. That consumption drives advertising revenues.
To ban Trump would probably slightly increase traffic in the short-term as people flock to Twitter to shout their opinion into the digital abyss, but after the furor dies down, I bet a chunk of their traffic would go with it.
Actually, the supreme court is to blame. They they
Ruled in 2017 (ish). That legally anything a president said via Twitter was legally binding( paraphrasing). Anything a politicans says via twitter is law is how it was ruled. It came about when twitter had banned teump( later that employee was fired) but the law regulated anything that the president says on twitter is the same as a press conference. So all his tweets and tweets going forward for a president is equal to addressing the nation and is law.
Edit: Yes it was in October 2017.
What had happened is a Trump worker deactivated his account on their last day of work. Which sparked a legal debate whether a social media company could bann a president. The courst ruled that a president can not be banned as they may need any platform to annouce emergencies. So yes your right IMO twitter gains alot from trumps crazy in ads but they also cannot ban him out right as it would be illegal as he is currently the president. That is why they have the disclaimers over his tweete when he goes full Q-Annon.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 09-17-2020 at 04:28 AM.
Actually, the supreme court is to blame. They they
Ruled in 2017 (ish). That legally anything a president said via Twitter was legally binding( paraphrasing). Anything a politicans says via twitter is law is how it was ruled. It came about when twitter had banned teump( later that employee was fired) but the law regulated anything that the president says on twitter is the same as a press conference. So all his tweets and tweets going forward for a president is equal to addressing the nation and is law.
Edit: Yes it was in October 2017.
What had happened is a Trump worker deactivated his account on their last day of work. Which sparked a legal debate whether a social media company could bann a president. The courst ruled that a president can not be banned as they may need any platform to annouce emergencies. So yes your right IMO twitter gains alot from trumps crazy in ads but they also cannot ban him out right as it would be illegal as he is currently the president. That is why they have the disclaimers over his tweete when he goes full Q-Annon.
Why can’t they ban Trumps private account and force him to use the official Presidential account?
So Nate Silver has apparently started a twitter war with Bitecofer on this, calling it “bad math”. He came across a little nasty about it, but the issue is her model ignores the fact that polling errors are not independent events but correlated.
I’m not smart enough to weigh into the math debate. What I liked was her theory that vote preferences are not particularly elastic, and haven’t been for a few years. That “feels” right to me, based on my hunch and nothing else. If it’s true, movement in the polls is mostly statistical noise and this cake has been baked for a while.
Lol I'll have to go check it out, Nate twitter wars are always entertaining.
And calling it inelastic is like calling the pandemic inconvenient, understatement of the year. Tribalism run amok more like. But yeah I agree, we've seen lots of articles posted here about it from different perspectives.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So Nate Silver has apparently started a twitter war with Bitecofer on this, calling it “bad math”. He came across a little nasty about it, but the issue is her model ignores the fact that polling errors are not independent events but correlated.
I’m not smart enough to weigh into the math debate. What I liked was her theory that vote preferences are not particularly elastic, and haven’t been for a few years. That “feels” right to me, based on my hunch and nothing else. If it’s true, movement in the polls is mostly statistical noise and this cake has been baked for a while.
That's interesting, because that non-correlation of polling errors is exactly why places like HuffPost Pollster were predicting a 99% chance of a Clinton win, with the head of HPP even writing a take-down of 538's model as a result, just days before their 99% prediction got destroyed.
It seems like following that, any predictors not accounting for that should have a very good reason why they aren't, rather than this simply being the standard way of doing things. That said, I agree that there's a lot about Bitecofer's argument that makes sense to me, and I'd be really interested to see what her model, adjusted for correlated polling errors, looks like.
That's interesting, because that non-correlation of polling errors is exactly why places like HuffPost Pollster were predicting a 99% chance of a Clinton win, with the head of HPP even writing a take-down of 538's model as a result, just days before their 99% prediction got destroyed.
It seems like following that, any predictors not accounting for that should have a very good reason why they aren't, rather than this simply being the standard way of doing things. That said, I agree that there's a lot about Bitecofer's argument that makes sense to me, and I'd be really interested to see what her model, adjusted for correlated polling errors, looks like.
Did their 99% prediction get 'destroyed' though? That still leaves a 1% chance. Just because we have the unfortunate luck to live in the universe where the 1% chance came through, doesn't mean the 99% prediction was wrong.
Did their 99% prediction get 'destroyed' though? That still leaves a 1% chance. Just because we have the unfortunate luck to live in the universe where the 1% chance came through, doesn't mean the 99% prediction was wrong.
Compared to 538 who gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning? I'd say that's destroyed. Trump will again probably have a 20-30% chance of winning this time. Still makes Biden a heavy favorite, but 99% is basically a guarantee, 70% is much riskier.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Did their 99% prediction get 'destroyed' though? That still leaves a 1% chance. Just because we have the unfortunate luck to live in the universe where the 1% chance came through, doesn't mean the 99% prediction was wrong.
I think it got destroyed in terms of not only being wrong, but with some pollsters confirming afterwards that that there were polling problems that had resulted in missing in the same direction in many states, exactly what 538's model was designed to pick up, and which their model did not.
Plus, HPP didn't write something like, 'Our model shows that a Clinton victory is extremely likely, but a 1% chance is still a chance." Instead, their editorial ended with something like "Relax, Hillary's got this." The hubris of that statement removes their ability to hide behind that 1% chance, IMO.
Biden is probably going to win because so many of the fundamental underlying conditions are in his favor. But I hope that Dems don’t then use his campaign as a model for how to run national campaigns. Among other things, the absence of a ground presence and minimal Latino outreach seem like pretty big strategic mistakes, even though they’re unlikely to actually cost him the election.
Compared to 538 who gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning? I'd say that's destroyed. Trump will again probably have a 20-30% chance of winning this time. Still makes Biden a heavy favorite, but 99% is basically a guarantee, 70% is much riskier.
If the election was tomorrow, then high 90s might be supportable. So many things could happen in 2 months, it's pretty silly to claim 99% now.
Continuing on with the weekly polling data update here are the trends.
We will acknowledge that Trump is a clear winner in Alaska (3), Idaho (4), Montana (3), Wyoming (3), Utah (6), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), Kansas (6) Oklahoma (7), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Arkansas (6), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Tennessee (11), Kentucky (8), Indiana (11) and West Virginia (5).
Trump has Texas (38) and South Carolina (9) leaning his way.
Trump = 170 electoral college votes.
We will also acknowledge that Biden is a clear winner in California (55), Oregon (5), Washington (12), Illinois (20), New York (29), Massachusetts (11), Rhode Island (4), Connecticut (7), New Jersey (14), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Maryland (10) and DC (3).
Biden has Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Minnesota (10), and Maine (4) leaning his way.
Biden = 220 electoral college votes.
This leaves the follow as battleground states. Data from Real Clear Politics averages (trend indicates riser).
We'll also add some important Senate races as they provide interesting context to possible swings in given states and should help normalize expectations from some of the polling.
Arizona - Kelly (D) vs McSally (R)* - Kelly +7.0
North Carolina - Cunningham (D) vs Tillis (R)* - Cunninghan +3.3
Michigan - Peters (D)* vs James (R) - Peters +3.5
Maine - Gideon (D) vs Collins (R)* - Gideon +4.5
Iowa - Greenfield (D) vs Ernst (R)* - Greenfield +0.3
Montana - Bullock (D) vs Daines (R)* - Daines +2.0
Colorado - Hickenlooper (D) vs Gardner (R)* - Hickenlooper +5.0
Minnesota - Smith (D)* vs Lewis (R) - Smith +8.7
Georgia - Ossoff (D) vs Perdue (R)* - Perdue +4.3
Alabama - Jones (D)* vs Tuberville (R) - Tuberville +8.0
Texas - Hegar (D) vs Cornyn (R)* - Cornyn +9.0
Senate projection - Republican 49 vs Democrat - 51
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Now if we say there is a 2% polling error nationally which is the same in every state Trump ends of winning Florida, Georgia, NC which brings him to 246.
A 2.4% polling error brings him Ohio and up to 264 which makes Michigan the tipping point state. It just happens to be one of the more error prone states.
Now if we say there is a 2% pooling error nationally which is the same in every state Trump ends of winning Florida, Georgia, NC which brings him to 246.
A 2.4% polling error brings him Ohio and up to 264 which makes Michigan the tipping point state. It just happens to be one of the more error prone states.
Or we can take the opposite view of that polling error and that would shift Georgia and Texas (not on the list) as in Biden's column and its a massive blow out. That is why I tend to keep polling errors out of the mix as they allow for the building of false narratives. The polling from the last election was quite accurate, so I'm still going to trust the polls, especially state-by-state.
I don't even think the Biden campaign believes they are ahead in Ohio. Not enough quality polls from there yet and Trump won it by a significant margin. Wasting any resources on Texas or Georgia is the Hillary mistake, although Arizona looks very much like it's going blue so definitely be willing to put money there. Pennsylvania is the concern right now, gotta drive that Philly/Pittsburgh suburb vote because we know the Pennsyltucky vote will consolidate behind Trump.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Or we can take the opposite view of that polling error and that would shift Georgia and Texas (not on the list) as in Biden's column and its a massive blow out. That is why I tend to keep polling errors out of the mix as they allow for the building of false narratives. The polling from the last election was quite accurate, so I'm still going to trust the polls, especially state-by-state.
Depends what conclusion you want to draw from the state by state data.
If the conclusion is somewhere around the 538 probabilities of Biden winning are somewhere in the 75% ball park then yeah that’s fair. If the conclusion is a 99% chance of Bide winning then I don’t think that is supported by data.
My point is that we are still a normal polling error away from Trump winning.
