The 2016 US American Election Thread

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have no idea as I don't understand statistics, and particularly, probability. Most people don't, but given its rhetorical weight of forecasting, these days, most people pretend to.

It feels good when the numbers tell you that you are on the right side of History.

Omg come on Peter! Is this sarcasm? You just torch a guy and immediately back out of it like this, stating you don't understand stats or probability? You're undermining yourself at every turn..

Predicting this election is complex (I'd compare it weather forecasting). So yeah it's not a perfect science and it's not intended to be. But throwing someone under a bus because you don't understand what they do? That's rich

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Omg come on Peter! Is this sarcasm? You just torch a guy and immediately back out of it like this, stating you don't understand stats or probability? You're undermining yourself at every turn..

Predicting this election is complex (I'd compare it weather forecasting). So yeah it's not a perfect science and it's not intended to be. But throwing someone under a bus because you don't understand what they do? That's rich

I am not throwing him under the bus at all. I am mocking his silly, and pretentious supporters who aren't willing to make the same admission that for the most part, they don't have a clue about the mathematics behind the forecasts, but rather like the forecasts because they give the illusion of mathematical certainty to their own beliefs.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Future generations tell us who was on the right side of history. Regardless of which horse you're pulling for there is nothing wrong with 538's methodology. People attacking 538 and Nate Silver typically dislike his results, haven't seen one person yet argue successfully against his formula.

You don't know his formula or his methodology because it is a proprietary trade secret that makes him money.

[PsYcNeT]

I didn't know laughing at race-baiting demagogues was partisan.

Live and learn I guess.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

A bunch of really smart people who instead of acknowledging the difficulty of explaining, let alone predicting the real world, write cheesy blog posts as part of a larger business model of selling punditry in a very competitive market place.

Where does the meritocratic part come in?

[PsYcNeT]

I think we're kind of getting away from the fact that while Peter has successfully derailed the thread by getting up in arms about everyone being mean about Trump for 2.5 pages, he still hasn't answered ResAlien's original question.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

https://twitter.com/marissaaevans/st...302592/photo/1

Classy!

Hacked!



...no wait, bad retweet and staffers fault!

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by peter12

You don't know his formula or his methodology because it is a proprietary trade secret that makes him money.

It really isn't that much of a secret. He weights polls by their known bias and historical accuracy. I don't need to see his formula when its laid out plainly, the proof is in the results.

I forecast things for a living. I care more about people's results than complaining about how they've rounded the percentages on the bottom line numbers. If he blows this election than obviously there's some issues with how he's approached things, but history has been on his side thus far.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Where does the meritocratic part come in?

Well, they all went to very good schools.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think we're kind of getting away from the fact that while Peter has successfully derailed the thread by getting up in arms about everyone being mean about Trump for 2.5 pages, he still hasn't answered ResAlien's original question.

I very clearly answered it a page or two ago. It was a comment on the low levels of CP political general knowledge.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

It really isn't that much of a secret. He weights polls by their known bias and historical accuracy. I don't need to see his formula when its laid out plainly, the proof is in the results.

I forecast things for a living. I care more about people's results than complaining about how they've rounded the percentages on the bottom line numbers. If he blows this election than obviously there's some issues with how he's approached things, but history has been on his side thus far.

He has had a terrible year for results.

The 2012 Presidential election was really the only thing that he has predicted, and granted, it was a pretty stunning forecast.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

...no wait, bad retweet and staffers fault!

Except for the pesky fact that it wasn't a retweet.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, they all went to very good schools.

So as statisticians/mathematicians their ideas and judgements have merit?

Or because they went to good schools they are without merit in your eyes?

I don't understand.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by peter12

He has had a terrible year for results.

The 2012 Presidential election was really the only thing that he has predicted, and granted, it was a pretty stunning forecast.

He bagged 2008, which is when I started following his predictions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/bu.../10silver.html

You're about 4 years behind when he actually became credible in the political arena.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So as statisticians/mathematicians their ideas and judgements have merit?

Or because they went to good schools they are without merit in your eyes?

I don't understand.

It's a pretty clear swipe at the current constitution of the American elite, and how they generate support from their targeted audiences.

Smart people say stuff, and make it clear that it is science or statistical, not dirty rhetoric. More clearly, it seems to support a pretty partisan position. People like it. Stuff like 538 is just rhetoric, not science, but people like to treat it as such because they don't know any better to treat it as a single source.

I don't know any better, but I like to look at things in the aggregate as often as possible.

[PsYcNeT]

GAWD Peter you can be so aggregating, you know?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's a pretty clear swipe at the current constitution of the American elite, and how they generate support from their targeted audiences.

Smart people say stuff, and make it clear that it is science or statistical, not dirty rhetoric. More clearly, it seems to support a pretty partisan position. People like it. Stuff like 538 is just rhetoric, not science, but people like to treat it as such because they don't know any better to treat it as a single source.

I don't know any better, but I like to look at things in the aggregate as often as possible.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence you're going to claim its fabrication? Lost in the wilderness.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence you're going to claim its fabrication? Lost in the wilderness.

I am not claiming that it is made up at all.

[calumniate]

Peter you just said 538 is not science, it's partisan rhetoric.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Peter you just said 538 is not science, it's partisan rhetoric.

Yeah, given how most of the people who read 538 do not understand its science, its value is purely rhetorical.

I never said it was fabricated.