2018 Midterms

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[4/5]

Yes thodoks, you're smarter than everyone else.

Thanks for the insight.

Seriously. Where does Silver's modeling account for the 3 vote lead that a State Senate candidate currently holds here in MT? Or for the multitude of GOP-lead voting restrictions? Math is great and all, but does nothing to communicate the stories of what is happening on the ground in real time.

Serious question: If you were a campaign manager for a candidate you desperately thought would make the world a better place, would you employ a pollster? Would you study results provided by outside polling institutions?

If this sounds snarky or insulting please know that isn't my intention.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[4/5]

Of course 538's info is useful to an organization engaged in candidacy, but I think it's contributing to the decline of intelligent discourse between voters.

I definitely don't understand this claim.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[---]

Yes thodoks, you're smarter than everyone else.

Thanks for the insight.

Seriously. Where does Silver's modeling account for the 3 vote lead that a State Senate candidate currently holds here in MT? Or for the multitude of GOP-lead voting restrictions? Math is great and all, but does nothing to communicate the stories of what is happening on the ground in real time.

That's not the ambition of a model, and to the extent that Silver (or any practitioner) leads others to believe otherwise, he is failing to do his job to properly communicate the value any model can be expected to add to a particular process.

Yeah, this is a fair take. Living here in a rural state for three years running, I'm just becoming more inclined to abandon these sorts of high-falutin' mechanisms in favor of passion, grit, and running a committed ground game. I'm not saying his math isn't valid, I'm just skeptical that it's adding anything of use to the national dialogue.

Again, I'm not sure the point of any model is to add value to the national dialogue; the real value a model provides is in optimizing some outcome meaningful to an individual, organization, or institution.

Silver is no different than anyone else who builds models for a living: we are all constrained by data quality and availability. To the extent "passion" or "grit" (or proxies thereof) could be quantified and turned into real-time data streams (uniform and consistent across precincts and locales, of course), it's almost certain that a model could more accurately model an election outcome than a single human brain.

[McParadigm]

Yes thodoks, you're smarter than everyone else.

Thanks for the insight.

Seriously. Where does Silver's modeling account for the 3 vote lead that a State Senate candidate currently holds here in MT? Or for the multitude of GOP-lead voting restrictions? Math is great and all, but does nothing to communicate the stories of what is happening on the ground in real time.

That's not the ambition of a model, and to the extent that Silver (or any practitioner) leads others to believe otherwise, he is failing to do his job to properly communicate the value any model can be expected to add to a particular process.

Yeah, this is a fair take. Living here in a rural state for three years running, I'm just becoming more inclined to abandon these sorts of high-falutin' mechanisms in favor of passion, grit, and running a committed ground game. I'm not saying his math isn't valid, I'm just skeptical that it's adding anything of use to the national dialogue.

Again, I'm not sure the point of any model is to add value to the national dialogue; the real value a model provides is in optimizing some outcome meaningful to an individual, organization, or institution.

Silver is no different than anyone else who builds models for a living: we are all constrained by data quality and availability. To the extent "passion" or "grit" (or proxies thereof) could be quantified and turned into real-time data streams (uniform and consistent across precincts and locales, of course), it's almost certain that a model could more accurately model an election outcome than a single human brain.

[---]

Of course 538's info is useful to an organization engaged in candidacy, but I think it's contributing to the decline of intelligent discourse between voters.

I definitely don't understand this claim.

Because it's even easier to talk past each other now that 538 is offering variable scenarios.

"My candidate's gonna win because the 538 Rainbow Model said blah blah blah."

"Yeah, but if you use the Farts + PeePee model, it says blah blah blah."

Twenty years of increasing engagement in grassroots politics tells me that this is a shitty political dialogue to have.

These are failures on the part of the consumer/voter to properly understand and engage with a model, not an implicit - or even inevitable - failure of the modeling process generally.

[Strat]

The doks just appreciates a really solid excel spreadsheet.

[McParadigm]

Those high profile (disappointment) races created a perception distortion event last night, and I m personally still correcting from that, but this is a pretty clear-eyed take.

[---]

The doks just appreciates a really solid excel spreadsheet.

Excel? Pffft.

[bune]

California voters reject the tyranny of daylight saving clock changesMan, I hope this catches on. I hate time changes.

Local initiatives:

– Big soda wins in its effort to prevent new taxes on groceries and sugary drinks (we already have a sugar tax on drinks, this was an additional tax). This was a toss-up for me. I don't want Coca-Cola, Keurig, and Red Bull throwing money into a local initiative that's written to help teach healthier eating habits, but I also don't think it's the state's position to try and tell people what to eat, and then to tax their choices that the state has deemed "bad". Sure, in the long run, you're looking at lower healthcare costs. But I dunno.... Seattle already has the 3rd most expensive groceries in the nation, and the proposal to give the state the ability to start taxing specific items was really, really vague. This was a really regressive tax. And during a time where it's becoming near impossible for low and middle income families to live in this city, it didn't seem like a fair way to make it even harder to stay here.

– The carbon fee isn't looking good. This was a history-making climate policy for the state that could have been a blueprint for future initiatives, but hey, when Boeing, the Port of Seattle, and Big Oil puts money behind something, it's tough to beat. Carbon fee initiatives have failed left and right over the years in the state, but this one had the biggest chance of passing. Bummer. Most of the taxes would come from the biggest polluters (except for state-run programs and some private companies, haha, what a joke), but people got scared of nominal higher gas prices.

– Stricter gun laws! We beat the NRA! I dunno what this will accomplish in the long run .... guns are gonna find the way into people's hands. But at least we just passed some responsible laws in order to get them. Always a volatile issue, but to me, if you're a responsible gun owner, the guidelines they laid out in this initiative aren't that big of a deal. Probably the most ambitious gun legislation the state has passed. I'm sure the east side of the state isn't too pleased, and I'm certain the NRA will be fighting it.

– Yes on police accountability. This removes language from a shitty preexisting initiative that makes it easier for courts to hold officers accountable, especially when they've acted in violence.. which has been a big issue in the state (and Seattle) the past 5-6 years. This also provides much needed de-esculation and mental health training, especially as the mental instability crisis keeps growing in Seattle and across the state.

I'm glad the gun law passed, there were a lot of Proud Boys outside Walmart around here and it was annoying to have to hear them / see them.

I was wishy-washy on the sugar and carbon fee. I hate the advisory votes because they phrase them so oddly to where a yes vote sounds like it could be a no vote and vice versa.

[Simple Torture]

<<says something>>

We really are living in an upside-down universe now, huh?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[4/5]

<<says something>>

We really are living in an upside-down universe now, huh?

[dimejinky99]

Those high profile (disappointment) races created a perception distortion event last night, and I m personally still correcting from that, but this is a pretty clear-eyed take.

It was a referendum on Trump ultimately though wasn’t it?

[4/5]

My point is that personal narratives play a much bigger role in how people vote, and those narratives are extremely sensitive to day-to-day fluctuations in the news, and to what extent people are feeling seen and heard. And I believe that line of thought has much more importance for the rural states where ideas and demographics are rapidly evolving.

I mean isn't that exactly why polls are useful? To measure the day-to-day or week-to-week, etc. changes in the mood and opinion of the electorate?

[---]

My point is that personal narratives play a much bigger role in how people vote, and those narratives are extremely sensitive to day-to-day fluctuations in the news, and to what extent people are feeling seen and heard. And I believe that line of thought has much more importance for the rural states where ideas and demographics are rapidly evolving.

That it no way undermines the importance of 538's data to organizations like campaigns and PACs; that info is super important. But Silver has positioned himself as something of a "pop pollster," showing up on mainstream news, and being re-Tweeted by every person with an opinion. And THAT'S what pisses me off about him; I'd much prefer his org stayed in the shadows, generating their data and making it useful to both parties. But god, I really wish his branded takes on everything would go the fuck away so that they don't further cloud what is for many an extremely emotional process.

So, in general, is it just the quantification of the electoral process that's got you so upset? Maybe I'm just wired differently, but I don't understand how a pop pollster's observations or predictions in any way cloud an individual's voting decision(s). Curious about your experience with this.