|
|
Post by DigDug on Nov 9, 2016 9:32:57 GMT -6
Not try to start a political conversation here. Just seems like I watched a HUGE sports event with an late game Upset.
|
|
|
|
Post by bentin on Nov 9, 2016 9:37:54 GMT -6
Yeah, I apparently need to start a polling company. Easy money, no actual research required.
|
|
|
|
Post by ickes on Nov 9, 2016 10:23:06 GMT -6
polls are bull shit. I'm really surprised that so many people are acting surprised by the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinky on Nov 9, 2016 10:27:30 GMT -6
I'm not necessarily surprised by the result, I'm just surprised that SO MANY STATE POLLS WERE WRONG.
Are they all using an old version of Excel that cuts off after 65,536 rows?
|
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Nov 9, 2016 10:40:16 GMT -6
polls are bull shit. I'm really surprised that so many people are acting surprised by the result. I did not see one serious statistical analysis that indicated a greater than 30% chance for Trump to win. SO I'll start there with my surprised face. |
|
|
|
Post by ickes on Nov 9, 2016 10:55:03 GMT -6
polls are bull shit. I'm really surprised that so many people are acting surprised by the result. I did not see one serious statistical analysis that indicated a greater than 30% chance for Trump to win. SO I'll start there with my surprised face. excuse me while I put on my tin foil hat for a second....but what I'm saying is how do we even know that there's any legitimacy to these "polls" and that they aren't completely fabricated by the media. I don't take them seriously for one second. I'm not one to take the medias word as the gospel truth. Even if these polls are actually taken there are so many variables to any given poll that can skew the result in one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by stinky on Nov 9, 2016 11:02:11 GMT -6
I did not see one serious statistical analysis that indicated a greater than 30% chance for Trump to win. SO I'll start there with my surprised face. excuse me while I put on my tin foil hat for a second....but what I'm saying is how do we even know that there's any legitimacy to these "polls" and that they aren't completely fabricated by the media. I don't take them seriously for one second. I'm not one to take the medias word as the gospel truth. Even if these polls are actually taken there are so many variables to any given poll that can skew the result in one way or the other. with the exception of some anomalies in the past, they are usually directionally accurate. Keep in mind that no one wants to be a shitty pollster, because if you are, you will need to find a new job. The accurate pollsters stay employed. |
|
|
|
Post by benjaminpersitz on Nov 9, 2016 11:02:43 GMT -6
So when Trump raises tariffs on the import of Japanese denim will we be able to discuss it and become angry? ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Nov 9, 2016 11:04:03 GMT -6
I did not see one serious statistical analysis that indicated a greater than 30% chance for Trump to win. SO I'll start there with my surprised face. excuse me while I put on my tin foil hat for a second....but what I'm saying is how do we even know that there's any legitimacy to these "polls" and that they aren't completely fabricated by the media. I don't take them seriously for one second. I'm not one to take the medias word as the gospel truth. Even if these polls are actually taken there are so many variables to any given poll that can skew the result in one way or the other. Well I guess thats the $5 question, how were they THAT far out of range given so many previous results in range. But 30% is 1 in 3........... |
|
|
|
Post by bentin on Nov 9, 2016 11:25:34 GMT -6
I vote we combine this thread with the Cocktails thread as that will be my coping mechanism.
|
|
|
|
Post by DigDug on Nov 9, 2016 11:30:16 GMT -6
I vote we combine this thread with the Cocktails thread as that will be my coping mechanism. On the bright side, the new tariffs might make TS move it's Portugal products back to the USA |
|
|
|
Post by bentin on Nov 9, 2016 11:31:10 GMT -6
I vote we combine this thread with the Cocktails thread as that will be my coping mechanism. On the bright side, the new tariffs might make TS move it's Portugal products back to the USA Hehe, and reduce the pricing of the current Mexican Boots. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2016 11:32:37 GMT -6
How did you guys vote? Meaning - paper, digital, etc. What is the process where you voted? It's such an archaic system and we'll never see reform unfortunately. We require the people who are dependent upon the system to "fix" the system. Rinse repeat every 2/4 years (based on your level of interest or caring).
I've lived and voted in 3 different states for Presidential elections - I've voted quickly in a booth that was near digital on the east coast, and most recently had to color in a line to complete a broken arrow pointing at my candidate of choice for this election after waiting 5.5 hours locked in city hall for my privilege to "vote early". How is this how we decide the most important person in the United States? I can vote for an American Idol easier and with much more accuracy and real-time results.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinky on Nov 9, 2016 11:44:44 GMT -6
In Chicagoland, we are given an option for electronic and paper ballots. I always choose paper. Not for tin-foil hat reasons, it just much more efficient/easier to do the paper ballot, plus I like the tactile experience of voting.
Frankly, I think the most interesting outcome of this election is what happened in Maine with the passage of Ranked Choice Voting (also known as instant run-off voting), that allows voters to rank the candidates from best to worst.
It's a great method, because if you want to vote for the protest candidate, you can do that and still vote for your least-hated major party candidate without the protest candidate swinging the election to your most-hated candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Nov 9, 2016 11:49:29 GMT -6
I voted in person via. a paper ballot.
My wife early voted.
But nearly half of the electorate did not.
There is no interest in making this process easier, only harder. See below.
231,556,622 eligible voters
46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted Clinton
25.5% voted Trump
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2016 11:51:49 GMT -6
I voted in person via. a paper ballot. My wife early voted. But nearly half of the electorate did not. There is no interest in making this process easier, only harder. See below. 231,556,622 eligible voters 46.9% didn't vote25.6% voted Clinton 25.5% voted Trump Ugh |
|
|
|
Post by stinky on Nov 9, 2016 11:55:19 GMT -6
There is no interest in making this process easier, only harder. This. Also see: "voting literacy test." |
|
|
|
Post by nate001 on Nov 9, 2016 13:56:00 GMT -6
In Chicagoland, we are given an option for electronic and paper ballots. I always choose paper. Not for tin-foil hat reasons, it just much more efficient/easier to do the paper ballot, plus I like the tactile experience of voting. Frankly, I think the most interesting outcome of this election is what happened in Maine with the passage of Ranked Choice Voting (also known as instant run-off voting), that allows voters to rank the candidates from best to worst. It's a great method, because if you want to vote for the protest candidate, you can do that and still vote for your least-hated major party candidate without the protest candidate swinging the election to your most-hated candidate. I like to vote in person too, with my kids, on voting day. It (I hope) impresses the importance of voting to my kids and it makes me feel good to see my neighbors exercising a right that much of the world does not have. Ranked choice voting is the method used in city elections in Minneapolis. I live next door in St. Paul, but my Minneapolitan friends seem to like it. It certainly is the darling of political scientists. A word about the polls. As someone stated above, it's not like the pollsters are trying to get things wrong. If you read 538's rationale for their predictions, I think they do a pretty even handed job of weighing a number of polls and their past predictive value. It's just that this race wrote its own rule book. I don't know how you are supposed to accurately predict an outcome like this when every historical precedent suggested it would go the other way. I think 538 even made some adjustments after the primaries to account for this "uncharted territory". And finally, a 30% chance of winning the election (as 538 predicted for Trump) is not 0%. Just like a weather forecast, given the conditions on the morning of November 8, past events would lead us to conclude that if the election would be run 100 times, Trump would win 30 times and Clinton would win 70 times. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffrx on Nov 9, 2016 14:05:08 GMT -6
I have a voting machine that seems like it's from the 1980s. The result was surprising, but no matter how you feel, hopefully it is the people who will always be in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinky on Nov 9, 2016 14:41:53 GMT -6
A word about the polls. As someone stated above, it's not like the pollsters are trying to get things wrong. If you read 538's rationale for their predictions, I think they do a pretty even handed job of weighing a number of polls and their past predictive value. It's just that this race wrote its own rule book. I don't know how you are supposed to accurately predict an outcome like this when every historical precedent suggested it would go the other way. I think 538 even made some adjustments after the primaries to account for this "uncharted territory". And finally, a 30% chance of winning the election (as 538 predicted for Trump) is not 0%. Just like a weather forecast, given the conditions on the morning of November 8, past events would lead us to conclude that if the election would be run 100 times, Trump would win 30 times and Clinton would win 70 times. Nate Silver had a pretty public freakout over the media outlets that had high-nineties probability of Clinton winning. I've been a fan of his work for a while (although it should be noted that the bing ncaa bracket beat the 538 bracket). I think most clinton supporters thought that 70% meant that she would win because 70 > 50. If you told the same group of people that there was a 30% chance their car would explode the next time they started it, they would have a different take on the math. |
|
