New posts

The Trump Campaign #2: The Best Thread On The GB, Believe Me

Thread starter Wrong Element
Start date Oct 2, 2016

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#101

Liar said:
It's not about you.

It is what it is. "Likely" in "likely voter poll" means "who we assume is likely to vote".

The USC/LA Times likely voter poll makes one assumption, i.e guess. Numerous other likely voter polls makes a vastly different one.

You are making zero sense. Either a poll is a likely voter poll or it is not. This tells me the USC/LA Times poll is a likely voter poll:

"In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7 days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics and past voting behavior. This is the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the presidential election."

Adre

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#102

toubab said:
You are making zero sense. Either a poll is a likely voter poll or it is not. This tells me the USC/LA Times poll is a likely voter poll:

"In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7 days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics and past voting behavior. This is the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the presidential election."

That's a lot of words to say "guesstimate."

Hypoxia

doesn't watch television

Oct 4, 2016

#103

My point: current public polls are pretty much useless except as propaganda and headline fodder. The R (what there are) and D private micro-polls are probably much more indicative of day-by-day sentiments -- but there's a shitload of uncertainty between now and November. Lots of space for bad news and events. Lots of possible fuckups. And many undecideds.

Not to mention hacking of voting systems. November numbers may diverge wildly from what we think we know now. Tromp may be right -- the election may be rigged -- but by and for whom? And of course voter suppression, intimidation, lost / trashed ballots, et fucking cetera. Already, many voters won't believe the outcome numbers.

USA voting system is a disaster, an inchoate mess, and it won't be fixed anytime soon. Yow.

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#104

Adre said:
That's a lot of words to say "guesstimate."

All polling involves guessing. The point here is there is clearly an attempt by those conducting the USC/LA Times poll to include in the poll those they believe are most likely to vote in the election. That makes it a likely voter poll in my opinion, which opinion happens to be shared by Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics, among many others.

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#105

Hypoxia said:
My point: current public polls are pretty much useless except as propaganda and headline fodder. The R (what there are) and D private micro-polls are probably much more indicative of day-by-day sentiments -- but there's a shitload of uncertainty between now and November. Lots of space for bad news and events. Lots of possible fuckups. And many undecideds.

Not to mention hacking of voting systems. November numbers may diverge wildly from what we think we know now. Tromp may be right -- the election may be rigged -- but by and for whom? And of course voter suppression, intimidation, lost / trashed ballots, et fucking cetera. Already, many voters won't believe the outcome numbers.

USA voting system is a disaster, an inchoate mess, and it won't be fixed anytime soon. Yow.

You're right about the uncertainty in this election. In many respects.

Darbhinder

Anti-Paki E is my 2nd

Oct 4, 2016

#106

Clinton is in the lead again.

Adre

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#107

toubab said:
All polling involves guessing. The point here is there is clearly an attempt by those conducting the USC/LA Times poll to include in the poll those they believe are most likely to vote in the election. That makes it a likely voter poll in my opinion, which opinion happens to be shared by Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics, among many others.

Nate may share that opinion, but he gives Hillary a 72% chance of winning despite that poll showing Trump 4 points ahead. Square that for us. (And remember you just stated that it's almost impossible to lose the national by more than 2 and win the EC.)

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#108

Adre said:
Nate may share that opinion, but he gives Hillary a 72% chance of winning despite that poll showing Trump 4 points ahead. Square that for us. (And remember you just stated that it's almost impossible to lose the national by more than 2 and win the EC.)

That's simple. Nate thinks the polling methodology is fundamentally flawed. He may be right. We shall see in a few weeks.

Liar

now with 17% more class

Oct 4, 2016

#109

toubab said:
All polling involves guessing. The point here is there is clearly an attempt by those conducting the USC/LA Times poll to include in the poll those they believe are most likely to vote in the election. That makes it a likely voter poll in my opinion, which opinion happens to be shared by Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics, among many others.

Am I talking to a brick wall?

It's not a matter of opinion. A likely voter poll is a likely voter poll is a likely voter poll. Nate Silver, RealClearPolitics and other aggreagators don't have an "opinion" on whether they are likely voter polls ot not. They are, which means an attempt has been made to adjust the sample pool from just registered voter data, or they are not. Period.

EVERY poll that labels itself a likely voter poll makes an attempt to include in the poll those they believe are most likely to vote in the election. That's what "likely voter" means. And there are dozens of likely voter polls. Most major polls are. They have ALL made such an attempt. Ipsos, Gravis, Quinnipac, Reuters, and so on. It's not a matter of opinion.

What is a matter of opinion is whether they have made a good attempt that gives them correct results or not. The USC/LA Times poll produce a result that vastly differs from other likely voter polls.

So, either that poll is incorrect, or so are all the others (that Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics also say are likely voter polls, because they also are).

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#110

Liar said:
Am I talking to a brick wall?

It's not a matter of opinion. A likely voter poll is a likely voter poll is a likely voter poll. Nate Silver, RealClearPolitics and other aggreagators don't have an "opinion" on whether they are likely voter polls ot not. They are, which means an attempt has been made to adjust the sample pool from just registered voter data, or they are not. Period.

EVERY poll that labels itself a likely voter poll makes an attempt to include in the poll those they believe are most likely to vote in the election. That's what "likely voter" means. And there are dozens of likely voter polls. Most major polls are. They have ALL made such an attempt. Ipsos, Gravis, Quinnipac, Reuters, and so on. It's not a matter of opinion.

What is a matter of opinion is whether they have made a good attempt that gives them correct results or not. The USC/LA Times poll produce a result that vastly differs from other likely voter polls.

So, either that poll is incorrect, or so are all the others (that Nate Silver and RealClearPolitics also say are likely voter polls, because they also are).

Nobody knows if the poll is correct or incorrect at this point. We will not know that until the election is over.

Liar

now with 17% more class

Oct 4, 2016

#111

toubab said:
Nobody knows if the poll is correct or incorrect at this point. We will not know that until the election is over.

Indeed. I just say that it's statistically likely to be incorrect. And that being a likely voter poll doesn't mean anything for it's credibility, since there are many other likely voter polls that contradict it.

Which is why I tend to trust aggreagators and say it's foolish to trust any singular poll.

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#112

Liar said:
Indeed. I just say that it's statistically likely to be incorrect. And that being a likely voter poll doesn't mean anything for it's credibility, since there are many other likely voter polls that contradict it.

The reason most pollsters switch to likely voter models in October and November is they are thought to be more predictive of how the election will turn out than other models. The trick is in determining who the likely voters are. That's not that easy to do. The people who are conducting the USC/LA Times poll did a very good job of that in 2012. It remains to be seen if they can do it two times in a row.

Hypoxia

doesn't watch television

Oct 4, 2016

#113

toubab said:
Nobody knows if the poll is correct or incorrect at this point. We will not know that until the election is over.

Even then, distrust and uncertainty (and possible haciking and rigging) may mask the electorate's real sentiments. "It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes." --J.Stalin

toubab said:
The people who are conducting the USC/LA Times poll did a very good job of that in 2012. It remains to be seen if they can do it two times in a row.

I've seen arguments that evolution of communications (more cellphone-only citizens) and attitudes (more distrust and paranoia) renders even the 2012 models obsolete. And how can a poll's accuracy be judged when final election numbers themselves are uncertain and disputed? Rigging and hacking; discarded ballots; voter suppression and intimidation; conflicting court decisions on voting / counting procedures -- it's a royal mess.

Elections are more honest and straightforward in Guatemala than in USA. Yow.

T

toubab

Literotica Guru

Oct 4, 2016

#114

Hypoxia said:
Even then, distrust and uncertainty (and possible haciking and rigging) may mask the electorate's real sentiments. "It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes." --J.Stalin

I've seen arguments that evolution of communications (more cellphone-only citizens) and attitudes (more distrust and paranoia) renders even the 2012 models obsolete. And how can a poll's accuracy be judged when final election numbers themselves are uncertain and disputed? Rigging and hacking; discarded ballots; voter suppression and intimidation; conflicting court decisions on voting / counting procedures -- it's a royal mess.

Elections are more honest and straightforward in Guatemala than in USA. Yow.

I can't dismiss what you're saying, but if we can't trust our elections, what can we trust? I think there's a fairly good chance we can look at all the polls right before election day, and especially the exit polls done on election day, and determine if an election has been stolen or not.

RobDownSouth

Never Banhammered

Oct 4, 2016

#115

Hillary widens lead in Pennsylvania

Hillary has 50% of likely voters, Trump has 40%. Well beyond margin of error.

Hillary has blanketed Penn. with the commercial featuring Trump denigrating women and it is paying major dividends.

Clinton has made sharp gains with white women, the poll found. Her support among that group grew from 46 percent in August to 55 percent in the latest survey.

Toubab, BotanyBoy and/or LadyFunkenstein will be along shortly to dismiss the findings of this poll. These zealots hate Hillary with a passion, and won't stop telling us this until YOU HATE HILLARY TOO!

LadyFunkenstein

Photoshopped

Oct 4, 2016

#116

RobDownSouth said:
Toubab, BotanyBoy and/or LadyFunkenstein will be along shortly to dismiss the findings of this poll. These zealots hate Hillary with a passion, and won't stop telling us this until YOU HATE HILLARY TOO!

I have neither promoted nor discounted polls (regardless of findings) because I don't care about them. I think they are a waste of my time. I doubt I've even entered a discussion about them at all this election cycle.

Why are you lying about this, what exactly are you gaining from this lie?

I do hate HRC with a passion, but you don't have to tell bald faced lies to get that point across.

Further I do not attempt to make people hate HRC also, I do not engage in link wars, I do not post news articles against her. I don't post political-based attacks against people because they disagre with me (unlike you). I avoid posting articles altogether because I prefer to simply speak my mind.

BoyNextDoor

I hate liars

Oct 4, 2016

#117

toubab said:
Interesting stuff:

"Here are the ten key issues:

1: Sanders favors “breaking up the big banks.” Hillary Clinton opposes that.

.......

I seriously doubt this guy was a Sander voter. But even allowing that he was, on the policy points he makes Hillary is still the better option. Trump does not want to break up the banks, etc ...

Wrong Element

Sentient Onion

Oct 5, 2016

#118

BoyNextDoor said:
I seriously doubt this guy was a Sander voter. But even allowing that he was, on the policy points he makes Hillary is still the better option. Trump does not want to break up the banks, etc ...

Yeah. it's arguably a decent anti-Clinton argument (I'd disagree with a lot of it, especially the fossil fuels thing, since I seem to recall Sanders taking a lot of plane trips during the primary campaign), but he doesn't even attempt to make an affirmative case for Trump, let alone claim that Trump is with him on the issues.

BotanyBoy

Fuck Your Safe Space

Oct 5, 2016

#119

BoyNextDoor said:
I seriously doubt this guy was a Sander voter. But even allowing that he was, on the policy points he makes Hillary is still the better option. Trump does not want to break up the banks, etc ...

Hillary doesn't want to break up the banks......

You really think she's going to crucify her cash cow? LOL get real.

She want's to 'regulate' them which is politispeak for hook them up with a bill that looks good to the masses.

"The Fair Banking and Prosperity Act" .....actually lets banks write their own regulations. *insert HRC cackle*

Wrong Element said:
Yeah. it's arguably a decent anti-Clinton argument (I'd disagree with a lot of it, especially the fossil fuels thing, since I seem to recall Sanders taking a lot of plane trips during the primary campaign), but he doesn't even attempt to make an affirmative case for Trump, let alone claim that Trump is with him on the issues.

The folks who don't think HRC is going to be the most revolutionary fighter for the middle class against the people paying for her lifestyle/career, aren't necessarily Trump voters/supporters.

Lot's of libs like myself just aren't drinking the Neo Kool-Aid.

I mean seriously.....Romney was further left than Clinton.

She's there to get rich, get her billionaire investors rich and do so with the bare minimum required to keep the torches and pitchforks at bay.

Last edited: Oct 5, 2016

BoyNextDoor

I hate liars

Oct 5, 2016

#120

BotanyBoy said:
Hillary doesn't want to break up the banks......

You really think she's going to crucify her cash cow? LOL get real.

She want's to 'regulate' them which is politispeak for hook them up with a bill that looks good to the masses.

"The Fair Banking and Prosperity Act" .....actually lets banks write their own regulations. *insert HRC cackle*

Nope. HRC will not do anything about breaking up the banks. However, she at least supports programs for small businesses that woudl create smaller local banks as a viable alternative. I just know the alternative in this case is far worse.

In other cases, for example min wage, college affordability, climate change, healthcare, tax policy , etc....... HRC is vastly more in line with the Bern. Vastly.

BotanyBoy

Fuck Your Safe Space

Oct 5, 2016

#121

BoyNextDoor said:
Nope. HRC will not do anything about breaking up the banks. However, she at least supports programs for small businesses that woudl create smaller local banks as a viable alternative. I just know the alternative in this case is far worse.

I'll believe it when I see it.

BoyNextDoor said:
In other cases, for example min wage, college affordability, climate change, healthcare, tax policy , etc....... HRC is vastly more in line with the Bern. Vastly.

I think she's just talking up a good game and all that shit will go right the fuck out the window November 10th.

phrodeau

Literotica Guru

Oct 5, 2016

#122

BotanyBoy said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

I think she's just talking up a good game and all that shit will go right the fuck out the window November 10th.

But we can all expect that Donald Trump is a man of his word, despite evidence to the contrary.

phrodeau

Literotica Guru

Oct 5, 2016

#123

Donald Trump will be live tweeting tonight's debate.

Couldn't he get a seat in the auditorium?

BotanyBoy

Fuck Your Safe Space

Oct 5, 2016

#124

phrodeau said:
But we can all expect that Donald Trump is a man of his word, despite evidence to the contrary.

Man you're one confused sum' bitch.

Hypoxia

doesn't watch television

Oct 5, 2016

#125

BotanyBoy said:
Man you're one confused sum' bitch.

Rather than name-calling, why don't you merely refute with facts?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Have republicans shot themselves in the foot?

Replies: 7

Views: 121

Jan 10, 2024

Rick345

Poll: Black, Hispanic, young voters abandon Biden as election year begins

2

Replies: 25

Views: 239

Jan 8, 2024

Bray123

B

Biden making Trump the ‘Nelson Mandela of America’: Pollster

2

Replies: 31

Views: 378

Jan 7, 2024

PaxNurgle

P

Inmate No. P01135809 reportedly on tape pressuring election workers not to certify

Replies: 14

Views: 201

Dec 22, 2023

stxjimmy

S

NYTs Sees Trump AS The Return To Normalcy Candidate

Replies: 7

Views: 80

Dec 28, 2023

Chernosoth

Share:

X (Twitter) Reddit Email Link

Top