Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:Ugh. I'm just starting to realize I've formed a real negative, visceral reaction to data wonks. It's been long-gestating (Mrs Trag did her masters at an Ivy League, and a lot of those people are so effing annoying)...

I much prefer the big think and dissection of systems of Nader, Chomsky, Klein, etc over this sort of bullshit.

theplatypus wrote:

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

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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

Ugh. I'm just starting to realize I've formed a real negative, visceral reaction to data wonks. It's been long-gestating (Mrs Trag did her masters at an Ivy League, and a lot of those people are so effing annoying)...

I much prefer the big think and dissection of systems of Nader, Chomsky, Klein, etc over this sort of bullshit.

tragabigzanda wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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

Ugh. I'm just starting to realize I've formed a real negative, visceral reaction to data wonks. It's been long-gestating (Mrs Trag did her masters at an Ivy League, and a lot of those people are so effing annoying)...

I much prefer the big think and dissection of systems of Nader, Chomsky, Klein, etc over this sort of bullshit.

who hurt you

I was capable of empathy until I discovered RM.

The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

By Richard Baehr

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time Pthis happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

Simple Torture wrote:Good news, Pearl Jam fans in North Carolina:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13U28E

Simple Torture wrote:Good news, Pearl Jam fans in North Carolina:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13U28E

96583UP wrote:they require a gift gesture prior to offering a response. typically, either a dumpster or above-ground-swimming pool full of cash, with ed's favorite thing of the moment painted on the side