Red Mosquito

Dinner dinner wife wife thank you thank you

The Argonaut wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:538s inability to just say "We fucked up."

trag

If their mission is to aggregate and suss out the existing data, they did a piss-poor job.

No, they didn't. If you still think that, you weren't paying attention to them before or after the election. Their number was more conservative than just about all three other aggregators. Nate Silver got into a Twitter war before the election with people who were criticizing the site for not being lower on Trump. And they banged the gong from day one of the model's launch that this was a volatile race that Trump always had a real chance at winning.

This.

Oh my God

tragabigzanda wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:538s inability to just say "We fucked up."

trag

If their mission is to aggregate and suss out the existing data, they did a piss-poor job.

No, they didn't. If you still think that, you weren't paying attention to them before or after the election. Their number was more conservative than just about all three other aggregators. Nate Silver got into a Twitter war before the election with people who were criticizing the site for not being lower on Trump. And they banged the gong from day one of the model's launch that this was a volatile race that Trump always had a real chance at winning.

I know all this. IIRC, the highest they had Trump was 25% chance of winning. They were way off.

They actually had Trump over Clinton back in July.

That's the problem with this cycle's focus on these aggregator models that came up with a 'chance of winning' number. If you just look at that one number you're not getting the whole story that 538 or whoever is trying to tell.

The problem with this cycle was that blacks decided not to vote so it fucked everything up

Clinton being urged by computer scientists to pursue recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania due to possible vote tampering.

Pretty unlikely this amounts to anything, right?

theplatypus wrote:Clinton being urged by computer scientists to pursue recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania due to possible vote tampering.

Pretty unlikely this amounts to anything, right?

I can't see Hillary taking such a step. Jill Stein will play it for attention, but some other figure would have to involve themselves in a way that opens it up, and I don't know who.

Given the democrats refusal to take steps against voter fraud when they had the chance, I can't see how they would complain now.

theplatypus wrote:Clinton being urged by computer scientists to pursue recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania due to possible vote tampering.

Pretty unlikely this amounts to anything, right?

On the one hand I hope she doesn't because - and I can't be arsed to find the article - this loss means the Clintons are finally out of politics and we can start to build something for the new generation.

On the other, Trump is still scaring me and it would be hilarious for him to go through all these picks to be told, "um, actually..."

BurtReynolds wrote:Given the democrats refusal to take steps against voter fraud when they had the chance, I can't see how they would complain now.

1. Fraud is not typically an issue. Suppression and districting manipulation are.
2. Much of the problem exists at the state level, where governments trend much more republican. They only get cut down via legal effort. See: Scott Walker's suppression attempt.

theplatypus wrote:Clinton being urged by computer scientists to pursue recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania due to possible vote tampering.

Pretty unlikely this amounts to anything, right?

Nate Silver, everyone's man crush in N&D, says they do not:



Run a regression on Wisc. counties with >=50K people, and you find that Clinton improved more in counties with only paper ballots. HOWEVER: pic.twitter.com/4swuU70NaY
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016

...the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year. pic.twitter.com/NYOINx9lEz
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016

Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but usually bad news when a finding can't survive a basic sanity check like this.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016

Nothing in Pennsylvania, either, whether or not you control for demographics. pic.twitter.com/25moBhv3Zm
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016

And Michigan has paper ballots everywhere, so not even sure what claim is being made there. pic.twitter.com/4YKrZEhTJl
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016

Bi_3 wrote:Nate Silver, everyone's man crush in N&D

He doesn't really look like that anymore

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Given the democrats refusal to take steps against voter fraud when they had the chance, I can't see how they would complain now.

1. Fraud is not typically an issue. Suppression and districting manipulation are.
2. Much of the problem exists at the state level, where governments trend much more republican. They only get cut down via legal effort. See: Scott Walker's suppression attempt.

I just found out episode 5 drops tomorrow!

Spoiler: show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbK49fAuB0U

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't really look like that anymore

More erection inducing? Or less?

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Given the democrats refusal to take steps against voter fraud when they had the chance, I can't see how they would complain now.

1. Fraud is not typically an issue. Suppression and districting manipulation are.
2. Much of the problem exists at the state level, where governments trend much more republican. They only get cut down via legal effort. See: Scott Walker's suppression attempt.

I just found out episode 5 drops tomorrow!

Spoiler: show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbK49fAuB0U

The fact that I'd never seen any of those videos before means the free Internet failed me

Citizen Dick wrote:

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't really look like that anymore

More erection inducing? Or less?

Fatter, balder

theplatypus wrote:

Citizen Dick wrote:

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't really look like that anymore

More erection inducing? Or less?

Fatter, balder

Stop being coy. That doesn't answer the question.