The 2016 US American Election Thread

[burn_this_city]

Do bettors understand the formula behind sports odds?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Do bettors understand the formula behind sports odds?

Not sure how they are the same thing.

[calumniate]

Haha, well that seals it then. Out on a limb, criticizing something you have absolutely no clue about. Well done!

[GirlySports]

[photon]

Haha Hannity was all over the "news" that the Obamas and Warren had unfollowed Clinton and were scrubbing their twitter accounts of references to her.

"Wow," Hannity said, and paused. "That means they know it's huge. You know why? Because Obama's implicated! He's implicated here, and he's pissed. You know what his legacy might be? Jail."

Hannity's gone full Breitbart.

[MissTeeks]

A bit more on the fake Obamas, Clintons news story from today:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/medi...ews/index.html

The deleted-tweets claim could have been disproven by a quick Twitter search.
The progression of events illustrates how fake news stories expand and spread from fringe web sites to nationally syndicated radio shows with millions of listeners. In this case, the fake news originated on a dubious site called "Your News Wire," which publishes a mix of true, slanted and made-up news. Then, like a game of telephone, by the time the story got to Hannity, even the fake facts were wrong.

The site claimed that "Michelle Obama has scrubbed all references to Hillary Clinton from both of her Twitter accounts" and implied that it was the result of FBI investigations into Clinton.
A thicket of far-right-wing web sites picked up the story and ran with it. Red State Watcher said the news was "breaking!" and News Ninja 2012 said it was "suspicious." "The rats are jumping ship," The Gateway Pundit wrote.

Pro-Trump social media users tweeted about it, further amplifying the falsehood. And a contributor to a relatively credible web site, ForexLive.com, posted an item asking "Is the First Lady distancing the Obamas from the Clintons?"

President Obama's @POTUS timeline includes recent tweets like "Couldn't be more proud of @HillaryClinton."
By 4 p.m., the made-up claims were on "The Sean Hannity Show." Hannity was talking about revelations from the Wikileaks trove of stolen Clinton campaign emails. He began to read information about Warren and Obama, then said "What?"
A female voice chimed in to report: "Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren have both unfollowed Hillary Clinton, as well as scrubbing their timeline of tweets about her."
"Wow," Hannity said, and paused. "That means they know it's huge. You know why? Because Obama's implicated! He's implicated here, and he's pissed. You know what his legacy might be? Jail."
Some of Hannity's listeners believed him -- they shared the fake news via Twitter and Facebook. "wow this is getting good!" one Hannity fan tweeted.
Hannity did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the error.

[Looch City]

Yeah but did they unfriend each other on Facebook? Everybody know that that's the true friendship breaker.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by calumniate

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

Polling is more art than science.

http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/19/...ientific-10329

What a miserable conversation.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by photon

Haha Hannity was all over the "news" that the Obamas and Warren had unfollowed Clinton and were scrubbing their twitter accounts of references to her.

"Wow," Hannity said, and paused. "That means they know it's huge. You know why? Because Obama's implicated! He's implicated here, and he's pissed. You know what his legacy might be? Jail."

Hannity's gone full Breitbart.

That's Hannity. Did he have his cronies Rudy and Newt with him?

[Senator Clay Davis]

The thing about Hannity and company is this election has shown them they have the green light to use any conspiracy or perceived conspiracy story and just run with it. Trump supporters have shown they'll believe anything if you can tie it back to something they hate, or to an already existing conspiracy they believe. Confirmation bias is so much easier in the internet age when you can seek out someone who "believes what I do". Why use multiple sources when there's one who will comfort you?

[GGG]

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.

Can you back this up with evidence

His entire mea culpa on Trump was that he should have built a model and trusted it instead of playing pundit. It would have clearly predicted a trump win.

Outside of that there was the polling miss in Michigan. However when they reviewed their primary model they found it mispredicted races within the mathematical expectations.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you back this up with evidence

His entire mea culpa on Trump was that he should have built a model and trusted it instead of playing pundit. It would have clearly predicted a trump win.

Outside of that there was the polling miss in Michigan. However when they reviewed their primary model they found it mispredicted races within the mathematical expectations.

Kind of proves my original point, yes?

[tussery]

Add Sid Miller to the list of people I will never vote for in Texas. Along with Blake Farenthold (I have the luck of being in his congressional district.)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

Kind of proves my original point, yes?

No it doesn't because you are saying his statistics aren't valid and it's just opinion wrapped up in math.

When the evidence shows the statistics he uses are valid.

And when he has been wrong it was because disregarded the numbers. So provided he is following the numbers his claims have been accurate.

[automaton 3]

Just reading around the internet, I'm constantly stuck about just how angry people seem to be about the candidates (in particular with respect to Clinton as of late).

I can't remember an election that seemed so downright hostile.

[dobbles]

Just want to say as someone that has a degree in mathematics, and someone that works at a software company that produces a predictive analytics offering, I fully trust what I read at 538. I don't have an advanced degree in stats to know exactly how they make their models work, but I still trust it. I trust that they adhere to academic standards and draw a clear line between what data is showing and when they are drawing conclusions from the data. They understand that while they are dealing with concrete numbers that those numbers have context that require things be interpreted. They are very transparent in those causes and effects and how it influences their positions.

Peter I continue to be amazed at your willingness to fight for such silly positions.

[Magnum PEI]

I dont frequent the site, but I've heard 538 has been wrong a lot since it predicted Brazil in the 7-1 Germany game.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I dont frequent the site, but I've heard 538 has been wrong a lot since it predicted Brazil in the 7-1 Germany game.

They were deadly accurate in the last two U.S. elections. In 2008 they correctly called 49/50 states, and in 2012 they got all 50 right. That being said, this election is arguably the most volatile in U.S. history, and 538 has mentioned a few times that the craziness of this election is a real test for their model. We'll see what happens next Tuesday, but based on their track record I'm pretty confident that they'll end up being correct with this one as well.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

I completely agree, and glad to see someone link to a NR piece, which has basically been a bastion of anti-Trump think-pieces almost since the beginning, and has kept on smashing charges into Trump's flank.

Yeah, the real issue here is that literally nothing matters. It is not White Knight vs Black Knight. It is deeply flawed candidate vs deeply dangerous candidate.

That's why the Clintonian partisan nonsense blows me away. This woman is not a hero! She is a pure political opportunist who is using the moral and political chaos of this election to take power. How can anyone not be blown away by this cynicism?

Look at her statements on gay marriage. By her current rhetoric, she would have been a deplorable homophobe as recently as 2013!

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...roblem/372717/

For like the 300th time: This election goes far, far beyond Clinton v. Trump. If you merely look at the Republican platform vs. the Democratic platform--the goals of each party with the coming Presidency--it tells you all you need to know.

Ignoring Trump's own unique set of awful, the GOP party platform is a disaster. They want to continue to ignore actual facts and actual science with regards to climate change. They support conversion therapy for gay kids (which has been proven repeatedly to be ineffective at best and intensely harmful at worst). They want to take away marriage equality. They want to expand on the disaster that is Citizens United by further relaxing campaign finance laws.

Pence is more problematic than Trump, in a lot of ways. Under his watch, Indiana managed a massive HIV outbreak, in large part because Pence was so adamantly anti-choice that his policies closed Planned Parenthoods and other clinics (even those that did not provide abortion services) that were the only HIV testing facilities for places like Scott County. GOP leadership is nearly as problematic as Trump, given that they're already stating that, after insisting that "voters should have a say" in the SCOTUS judge to replace Scalia, by letting the next President choose his replacement, they now are claiming that they will literally just refuse to fulfill their Constitutional duty and just leave the position open until a Republican is in the Oval Office.

I don't love Hillary, but she is less problematic than Trump, and the Democratic platform is dramatically less problematic than the GOP platform.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I dont frequent the site, but I've heard 538 has been wrong a lot since it predicted Brazil in the 7-1 Germany game.

I would assume they use a different model for politics than they use for sports.

They were really accurate in predicting the primaries during this election as well.