Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:29 pm UTC

After repeated requests: a new thread to discuss the Trump presidency.

This thread will also serve as a generic "US politics" thread, and I'll allow a fair bit of derailment.

Fell free to start other threads to discuss specific issues within US politics, with or without connection to Trump. Such other threads should stay on-topic, and off-topic posers should be directed to this thread.

As always: if you feel that this setup is not working, contact me by PM

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: AGA

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:37 pm UTC

Why's it called aga?

In other news Trump's been chasing a Russia deal for three decades. Maybe with the presidency behind him, he'll finally close a deal that's eluded him. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/po ... f=politics
Trump is serious about restoring relations to Russia and ending sanctions.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: AGA

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

You misspelled "ARGH".

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: AGA

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Why's it called aga?


I'm assuming it's named after the American Gastroenterological Association (because of the nausea).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: AGA

Postby WibblyWobbly » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

Something "America Great Again"?

Maybe "America's Great Already"?

(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)
Last edited by WibblyWobbly on Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: AGA

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

I'm assuming it's a reference to the Aga cooker, a type of cooker best-known for its longevity. Clearly, in this metaphor, the meaning is that the legacy of Trump's presidency will be long-lived.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: AGA

Postby WibblyWobbly » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:53 pm UTC

if it's not aspartylglucosaminidase, I'm out of here.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2533
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: AGA

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:58 pm UTC


User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: AGA

Postby Diadem » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:37 pm UTC

I'm guessing "Anthropomorphic Giant Asshole"
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: AGA

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:50 pm UTC

So far given this discussion, it's "attention grabbing article"

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1094
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: AGA?

Postby freezeblade » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

Another Goddamn Argument
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby WibblyWobbly » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:19 pm UTC

This topic went sideways in a hurry.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: AGA?

Postby Liri » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:20 pm UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:This topic went sideways in a hurry.

We will not be corralled!
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:43 pm UTC

Attempt Guessing Acronym

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: AGA?

Postby kingofdreams » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:33 pm UTC

'AminoCaproicAcid' shit i ducked up
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: AGA

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I'm guessing "Anthropomorphic Giant Asshole"


freezeblade wrote:Another Goddamn Argument


These are my favorites.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: AGA

Postby Thesh » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:02 am UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)


Don't worry, in a matter of days that will turn around completely.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: AGA

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:38 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
WibblyWobbly wrote:(Edit: something I was half-mindedly thinking about yesterday listening to Trump on NPR is how much time he spent telling us just how much of a shithole the US had become. There has never been a shittier shithole in Trump's recollection. Everything was the worst it had ever been in the history of the universe. Life itself had ceased to have any meaning, real or contrived, except to elect Trump in the slim hope that he could intercede on our behalf with the Almighty Himself, who had decreed the US to be "hell on earth" and had deserted us right about this time eight years ago. Afghanistan is in better shape than the US. Hell, Hiroshima on August 7, 1945 would be a better place to live than Obama's America.)


Don't worry, in a matter of days that will turn around completely.

Don't worry, China will gladly take the US's spot if the US can't keep it up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/busi ... ation.html
Well, it's not like the US has much of a choice anyway.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby sardia » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:26 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... y-of-2016/
Nate silver dissects the 2016 general election. Key points

]some traditional reporters and editors have built a revisionist history about how they covered Trump and why he won. Perhaps the biggest myth is when traditional journalists claim they weren’t making predictions about the outcome. That may still largely be true for local reporters, but at the major national news outlets, campaign correspondents rarely stick to just-the-facts reporting (“Hillary Clinton held a rally in Des Moines today”). Instead, it’s increasingly common for articles about the campaign to contain a mix of analysis and reporting and to make plenty of explicit and implicit predictions. (Usually, these take the form of authoritatively worded analytical claims about the race, such as declaring which states are in play in the Electoral College.) Furthermore, editors and reporters make judgments about the horse race in order to decide which stories to devote resources to and how to frame them for their reader

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012.

Third, voter preferences varied substantially based on news events, and the news cycle ended on a downturn for Clinton.

This is some hard hitting stuff the wizard is stating: TLDR fundamentals pointed to a close race, Trump had a stronger base located in swing States, and then the media pushed Trump over the edge to victory. Afterwards, the media then blamed Clinton for the media's own mistakes.

I've been thinking about this as Trump is reverting the world back to a darker time, but having it all listed out really shakes me. Thoughts? It's weird to me that Clinton didn't have much influence on her campaign but somehow Trump managed to win the demographics that won him the presidency. Isn't that Trump's campaign affecting the race? Or are the candidates separate from how a Campaign is run?
If so, then why bother raising money for campaigning?

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: AGA?

Postby thunk » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... y-of-2016/
Nate silver dissects the 2016 general election. Key points

]some traditional reporters and editors have built a revisionist history about how they covered Trump and why he won. Perhaps the biggest myth is when traditional journalists claim they weren’t making predictions about the outcome. That may still largely be true for local reporters, but at the major national news outlets, campaign correspondents rarely stick to just-the-facts reporting (“Hillary Clinton held a rally in Des Moines today”). Instead, it’s increasingly common for articles about the campaign to contain a mix of analysis and reporting and to make plenty of explicit and implicit predictions. (Usually, these take the form of authoritatively worded analytical claims about the race, such as declaring which states are in play in the Electoral College.) Furthermore, editors and reporters make judgments about the horse race in order to decide which stories to devote resources to and how to frame them for their reader

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012.

Third, voter preferences varied substantially based on news events, and the news cycle ended on a downturn for Clinton.

This is some hard hitting stuff the wizard is stating: TLDR fundamentals pointed to a close race, Trump had a stronger base located in swing States, and then the media pushed Trump over the edge to victory. Afterwards, the media then blamed Clinton for the media's own mistakes.

I've been thinking about this as Trump is reverting the world back to a darker time, but having it all listed out really shakes me. Thoughts? It's weird to me that Clinton didn't have much influence on her campaign but somehow Trump managed to win the demographics that won him the presidency. Isn't that Trump's campaign affecting the race? Or are the candidates separate from how a Campaign is run?
If so, then why bother raising money for campaigning?


I think the question of turnout is more about underlying personality and external shocks than last-minute campaigning. Trump likely won by turning out a long tail of uneducated white voters, which had flocked to him since the beginning. Whereas Clinton could not match Obama's black-voter turnout levels. Though that is a good observation.

The news cycle this election seemed, well, cyclical, with somewhat of a 2-month period. Trump secures nomination in May-->Clinton in June-->Comey condemnation in July-->Khizr Khan incident in August-->"Deplorables" etc. in September-->Machado+Trump's sexual assault in October-->Reopened investigation in very late October. It's consistent with the theory that the media focus on the failings of one candidate, get tired of that and notice the shift in the polls, and move on to the next. Poor timing, really.

As for that last part, it may well be why Trump's campaign ran many fewer TV ads and spent less money overall.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

morriswalters
Posts: 6944
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:07 pm UTC

I like the 538, but be careful about giving Nate Silver too much credence. There is no way to test what he saying. And he has a dog in the fight. So take what he gives you with a giant grain of salt.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: AGA?

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:12 pm UTC

Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby PeteP » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:25 pm UTC

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-18/the-empty-trump-administration
Overall, out of 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation tracked by the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, Trump has come up with only 28 people so far.

The Atlantic's Russell Berman had a good story two weeks ago about how far behind Trump was. Since then? If anything, it's getting worse -- he's added only two of those 28 since Jan. 5. As Berman reported, the Partnership for Public Service suggested a president should have "100 Senate-confirmed appointees in place on or around

Though the article doesn't really say whether past presidents generally had more appointed at that point, though I assume so?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: US administration

Postby sardia » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:40 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-18/the-empty-trump-administration
Overall, out of 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation tracked by the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, Trump has come up with only 28 people so far.

The Atlantic's Russell Berman had a good story two weeks ago about how far behind Trump was. Since then? If anything, it's getting worse -- he's added only two of those 28 since Jan. 5. As Berman reported, the Partnership for Public Service suggested a president should have "100 Senate-confirmed appointees in place on or around

Though the article doesn't really say whether past presidents generally had more appointed at that point, though I assume so?

Strange, I thought Trump was on track to purge most of the staff, mainly by skirting ethics and background checks. I guess that's a good thing right? His people can get vetted now.

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: AGA?

Postby Liri » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

Yeah, I just read Silver's article, and I have to agree (with sardia). He's being quite honest about 538's coverage - they consistently said Clinton's situation wasn't as secure as others insisted. Whether they gave Trump a 51% chance or not doesn't really matter so much, when compared to everyone else.

The really disturbing thing is, like he said, how the news media has entered this state of groupthink and creating the viewer reaction that'll get them the most eyeballs.

That said, I don't know that anyone could have covered Comey's letters in a way that wouldn't lead to undecided voters either breaking for Drumpf or previously Clinton-leaning potential voters staying home. But, she should never have been in the position where a final downturn in the news cycle for her would doom her campaign.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

morriswalters
Posts: 6944
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:10 am UTC

It's an Op Ed piece masquerading as science. They'll be arguing about this for years. It's a data point that's worth hearing, but it isn't gospel. And if 538 got it less wrong Nate should worry about being more right next time. Look at home first. He does have a point about the Times and WaPo though. One thing that was obvious to me after the election that national polling is worthless. It isn't a national election. It's 50 state elections.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:23 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:It's an Op Ed piece masquerading as science. They'll be arguing about this for years. It's a data point that's worth hearing, but it isn't gospel. And if 538 got it less wrong Nate should worry about being more right next time. Look at home first. He does have a point about the Times and WaPo though. One thing that was obvious to me after the election that national polling is worthless. It isn't a national election. It's 50 state elections.

WaPo surprised me, I thought WAPO were the more biased ones while NYtimes was more objective. Of course they differentiate the different compartments (nytimes political desk vs The Upshot data office, vs investigative office) How can you get less wrong about a 30% chance of winning? Are you looking for a model that shows a 95% chance predicting the winner?
Spoiler:
Image

Do you have a critique of any of these assertions?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: US administration

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:16 am UTC

sardia wrote:

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

You seem to take for granted that Nate Silver actually has some superior prediction method. But right now, his track record is 2 out of 3, basically par for the course. Perhaps his method is superior, but it can't yet reject the null hypothesis that he's just guessing like you and me.

His fame came from predicting more than just wins for Obama, he also gave detailed (and accurate) state by state prediction how the victory would happen. That suggested that he had a robust method

But this election showed that it's not actually that robust - when the election outcome is surprising, the method is fooled like everyone else. It's like a UPS that has exceptional reliability, but only when there's grid power. When the grid is gone, it's just as reliable as the others. Not worse, but not better either. Would you pay extra for that?

And prediction is his game. The NY Times can throw their hands in the air and say, well, it's inherently unpredictable. But Silver can't - if it's inherently unpredictable, what's the point of 538 coverage of the election? It would just be weekly updates on the noise. The Times at least gives you interesting articles on the difficulties of Manhattanites to get a good toilet designer for their 2nd helicopter.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: US administration

Postby Mambrino » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:29 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
sardia wrote:

Zamfir wrote:Nate's the Guy Who Can Predict The Election Because Science. That's the big claim to fame of the website. If he is wrong, then it's a bit cheap to point at everyone else who was also wrong.
is it better to be right by accident instead of coming up on the wrong end of a probabilistic prediction? Like if I bet the winner of the world cup based off tea leaves, vs the soccer power index. If the guy who bet on the team with the highest soccer power index is wrong, then his model is no better than tea leaves betting?
Is that a valid viewpoint? To be wrong, but less so than others instead.

You seem to take for granted that Nate Silver actually has some superior prediction method. But right now, his track record is 2 out of 3, basically par for the course. Perhaps his method is superior, but it can't yet reject the null hypothesis that he's just guessing like you and me.


But most of my Bayesian statistics studies have been about how hypothesis testing is quite silly, really, and not representative of reality.

What was the chances he gave Trump? Around 30%? Those things do happen. If things that Silver's method assigns 30% chance of happening keep happening 30% of the time, golly, that's quite good, and he would be more worthwhile information source than most of the pundits who claim they are absolutely sure about stuff, or wave hands around "we can't really know anything! all bets are off!". If that means that people who treat inherently uncertain things such as probabilistic predictions like absolutely certain forecasts, well, it's about the time they are educated.

But you're right that we don't have enough data points yet to truly evaluate Silver's performance. (Or maybe we could treat each state as a data point of its own and look at that...?)

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:02 am UTC

It's like when the weather forecast predicts a 70% chance of sunny weather at the weekend, when it's not sunny people shout "you got it wrong!", as if "70%" and "100%" are the same thing. Presumably these same people think when you roll a dice, it won't land on ANY of the numbers, as they've all got a 1/6 chance and are therefore not going to happen.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3758
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: US administration

Postby Dauric » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:16 am UTC

Mambrino wrote: (Or maybe we could treat each state as a data point of its own and look at that...?)


Isn't this kind of the thing though? Clinton won the overall national popular vote, but it's the state-by-state electoral map that put Trump in the White House.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

morriswalters
Posts: 6944
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:27 am UTC

sardia wrote:Do you have a critique of any of these assertions?
Yes. He contrasts positions that he can't demonstrate with any certainty. Take the proficiency of the Clinton Campaign. He denies that Clinton ran a poor campaign. How is that not just an opinion? What does he base his assertion on? Separate what he knows from what he believes. I can't state with certainty that he's wrong, but the only voice saying he is right, is his. As I said he's a data point that you can't ignore but he isn't gospel.
Dauric wrote:Isn't this kind of the thing though? Clinton won the overall national popular vote, but it's the state-by-state electoral map that put Trump in the White House.
Yes. The popular vote was the election she won. Unfortunately Trump won the other one that actually counted.

I said somewhere earlier on that I was practicing saying "Yes Mr. President Trump" to prevent me from gagging if he won. It still makes me gag.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby maybeagnostic » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:45 am UTC

She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.

Doing state-by-state data is pointless unless you are comparing it to another prediction method, like tea leaf reading and it would be very hard to distinguish between a rigorous statistical analysis and a competent tea leaf reader because there are so few interesting data points (most of the states are known quantities that either method would get right almost all the time).
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Chen
Posts: 5274
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: AGA?

Postby Chen » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:33 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:... based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.


I don't think you can work the percentages that way. I mean there was clearly some chance that Trump would win ALL the states. An exceedingly low one of course. If that did happen though, it doesn't necessarily mean that the 70% chance of Hillary winning was wrong. A lot of close states swapped to Trump (the exact method by which he had to win). I presume that probability lay in that 30% chance of him winning. It just materialized.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 550
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:06 am UTC


User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:33 pm UTC


Even if this is true, all politicians have been stereotyped into attacking small government programs that are very useful and or wasteful at the same time. Like the farm insurance program, it wastes billions but it's kept in place because it's small compared to the budget.
Tldr politicians love attacking small symbolic spending measures. Trump is only different in that he gets more credit for it. Like the carrier deal, or the bullshit Ford or soft bank deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/us/p ... bsite.html
As expected, all references to climate change, the us has the most authoritative data on climate change, is being purged.

I guess from now on, climate change will only be referred to as "disasters, and disaster relief"

reval
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby reval » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:16 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide

Michigan and Florida do not a landslide make. It was a close election in the end, and well within the range of the polling.

Nate Silver discusses the limits of the polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ and winds up with "Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

Is it just me, or did a lot of people miss what 29% means? Do you really need that much life experience to see a mountain of 1% chances come true (1/100)? And a lot of 1/1000 chances. And a not-inconsiderable number of 1/10,000 chances. It happens. It's life. It doen't necessarily mean that the methods or the statistics were wrong. Nate Silver's analysis of the polls was in fact correct. It just means that the number on the die came up.

I went to bed that night aware of the 29%, and was not at all surprised the next morning.
Last edited by reval on Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: AGA?

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:22 pm UTC

reval wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide

Michigan and Florida do not a landslide make. It was a close election in the end, and well within the range of the polling.

Nate Silver discusses the limits of the polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ and winds up with "Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

Is it just me, or did a lot of people miss what 29% means? Do you really need that much life experience to see a mountain of 1% chances come true (1/100)? And a lot of 1/1000 chanches. And a not-inconsiderable number of 1/10,000 chances. It happens. It's life. It doen't necessarily mean that the methods or the statistics were wrong. Nate Silver's analysis of the polls was in fact correct. It just means that the number on the die came up.

I went to bed that night aware of the 29%, and was not at all surprised the next morning.

In gambling, it makes a lot of sense to say you have a 30% chance of losing your poker hand. Thats cuz you play the long game, and you can afford small losses. Politics is a series of one time events separated by a 2 years. That's really hard for a lot of people to comprehend. The best example we can think of is the Cubs winning the world series. They're really good, and heavily favored, at 66% chance to win. Would anyone have been surprised if they lost the world series? No, because it makes sense to say that. Compare that to Zamfir calling out someone when they are "2 for 3" for predictions.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5087
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: AGA?

Postby Xeio » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:10 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.
The election wasn't a landslide even by electoral college counts though. You would have to consider almost every election a landslide to consider Trump's victory a landslide (except maybe John Quincy Adams), and you have to totally ignore the popular vote to even try it.

It was a very close election decided by less than 100k votes in a few states. 00.08% of voters could have swung the election.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5851
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: US President

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:45 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:She also won the popular vote by a lot less than fivethirtyeight predicted though so their method was off on that as well. If anything that is worse for their method because being 1.2pp off on a predicted 3.5pp spread for a very close race is quite a bit. Besides its not like they accidentally made their model predict the popular vote and turned out to be tricked by this Electoral College thing, they already knew exactly how the system worked, based their sophisticated model on it and predicted 70% chance of Hillary winning when she actually lost in a landslide (of the 538 Electoral Votes). It's the difference between a forecast of 70% chance of blizzard being followed by cloudy weather with some light snowfall versus bright sunny weather with not a cloud in the sky and temperatures well above freezing. Alternatively it's like the difference between predicting 70% chance of Brazil winning a semi-final only to get them lose to Germany 1-7.
The election wasn't a landslide even by electoral college counts though. You would have to consider almost every election a landslide to consider Trump's victory a landslide (except maybe John Quincy Adams), and you have to totally ignore the popular vote to even try it.

It was a very close election decided by less than 100k votes in a few states. 00.08% of voters could have swung the election.

Where did you get that .0008 number from? Last I checked it was 100x that number(1% loss), still close, but not that easy for Democrats to come back from.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JudeMorrigan and 18 guests