fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4193 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4193 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #600.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Seriously, we need to do whatever we can to motivate every single Democrat/liberal and independent (as well as any moderate Republicans that still exist and are horrified at what their party's become under Trump) to get out and vote like mad this November.

Honestly, though, I don't think people going out and voting in and of itself is going to be the big issue. I think (I certainly hope, at least) there's enough people on the left pissed off at what's happening to where they're going to go vote. My big concern is whether or not our election results will be fucked with again.

I think the left has lost independents and moderates for good, and they're losing liberals, too.

Do you have any quantitative evidence for that, or is it just SJWS REGRESSIVE LEFT-type shouting?

I didn't realize I was shouting.

I meant, is shouting going to be your evidence.

No, clearly I don't have evidence. I don't even know how you would obtain evidence. Polling apparently doesn't work. Polls told us Trump had no chance of winning.

Polls actually told us that Trump had a 35% chance of winning. 1 in 3.

The problem wasn't the polls, so much as it was people massively misinterpreting the polls, and everyone believing those people just because they wanted it to be true. Like, Nate Silver spent a good solid week or two on Twitter before the election screaming about how the polls were tightening and Trump had a chance. It's not the polls' fault that people decided to ignore him.

Polls actually told us that Trump had a 35% chance of winning. 1 in 3.

I'm not good at math, but that seems like an enormous margin of error that has nothing to do with interpretation.

It's not at all enormous! I mean, think about it - if you roll a six-sided dice, there's a 1/3 chance that it'll come up with a 1 or a 2. Flipping a coin and having it come up heads twice in a row is actually less likely than 35%. And you wouldn't actually be shocked if either of those things happened, because they're well within the normal course of events.

He was a definite underdog, especially in the context of a presidential race, but 35% chances do happen, all the time. Unlikelier things happen all the time.

I mean, I'm looking at this data...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

...and it just seems like there were some issues with the polling, considering the actual outcome.

So there's several different things going on here?

I've been talking about statistical models for using poll data to estimate election outcomes - in particular, the 538 model for doing so, which gave roughly a 35% chance of Trump winning. And the nice thing about these models is that they do much of the work of collating and combining all the individual polls for us.

Raw poll data is much more specific and dependent on context to make use of. So, for instance, in this case, the polls that you're linking to are national polls. And... Clinton won the national popular vote. By about 2 points. So say the aggregate national poll put her about 3 points ahead, that would actually be fairly accurate.

The problem is that the election isn't won based on the national popular vote. It's based on state polls. And the thing with state polls is that they were very light on the ground - there just weren't a lot of good state-level polls being run in 2016, and this was particularly the case in much of the Upper Midwestern states like Wisconsin that Trump ended up winning. IIRC, this was one of the underlying reason for the 538 model giving him a 35% chance despite Clinton having a lead in the national vote - there was so much uncertainty on the state level, and those states gave Trump a path to electoral college victory. And that's what ended up happening - the race was tighter in those states than Clinton's campaign thought, and independents there broke late for Trump (probably based, in part, on the Comey letter).

DA

I think the opposite, but I also think reality doesn't care much what one thinks, either you or me, based on our limited personal experiences.

[ SECRET POST #4193 ]

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring

Re: Justice Kennedy is retiring