BaalChatzaf Posted July 16, 2016 Author Share Posted July 16, 2016 4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: Well, if Hillary gets elected we're all screwed... And if The Donald is elected are a lot of people better off? Think of electing The Donald as a way of lighting a fuse. By God! It is a way of striking back at my enemies (The Government and the Jihadis) and it is perfectly legal! And the collateral damage? So what? My friend, Goodness has failed. Let us try Evil. It just might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: And if The Donald is elected are a lot of people better off? Bob, Yup. Trump builds things. He builds big things. Lots of people use 'em. And they are always better off for doing so. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: And if The Donald is elected are a lot of people better off? Trump has shown he can take on big projects, take on big people, and now he wants to take on big government--so far in his bid he has taken the steps to get there... 12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said: Think of electing The Donald as a way of lighting a fuse. By God! It is a way of striking back at my enemies (The Government and the Jihadis) and it is perfectly legal! And the collateral damage? And to think, if you exercise your Liberty and Volition to cast that vote, you wouldn't even have to jump out of any airplanes Edited July 16, 2016 by KorbenDallas ..make sure you bring a parachute if you wanna jump anyway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said: Trump has shown he take on big projects, take on big people, and now he wants to take on big government--so far in his bid he has taken the steps to get there... And to think, if you exercise your Liberty and Volition to cast that vote, you wouldn't even have to jump out of any airplanes KD: what do you think the Pence pick says about Trump's principles as they relate to issues that have led you to support him? I have noticed a strange silence around here from the Trump fans about his picking a pro-war, pro-NAFTA, establishmentarian, Elitist-type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 8 minutes ago, PDS said: KD: what do you think the Pence pick says about Trump's principles as they relate to issues that have led you to support him? I have noticed a strange silence around here from the Trump fans about his picking a pro-war, pro-NAFTA, establishmentarian, Elitist-type. I think it's a safe pick, Pence being someone that won't steal the spotlight, but when he gets to the podium he does a good job and an eventual yes-man if he isn't already. This pick seems to be more about Trump than anything else, so I don't think Trump's policy principles will be affected much, but it does seem to illuminate more of Trump's egotistical side (some would say narcissistic side). Pence is almost a non-pick pick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 16, 2016 Author Share Posted July 16, 2016 2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said: Trump has shown he can take on big projects, take on big people, and now he wants to take on big government--so far in his bid he has taken the steps to get there... And to think, if you exercise your Liberty and Volition to cast that vote, you wouldn't even have to jump out of any airplanes My jumping days are done. I have seen Einstein was right which is what I set out to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 3 hours ago, PDS said: I have noticed a strange silence around here from the Trump fans about his picking a pro-war, pro-NAFTA, establishmentarian, Elitist-type. David, To be honest, I, for one, don't have much to say. But not because I am cowed into silence by the growing realization of what a turkey Trump is and how I got fooled, FOOLED I SAY! FOOOOOOOOOOOOOLED!!!!... Apropos, you should have seen Biddibob crow on Facebook (see here). I swear, each time he talks about Trump, his rhetoric sounds like ThinkProgress or MoveOn except from a conservative-Randian perspective, with emphasis on the National Review conservative and less on the Randian. In other words, it's a tone of a self-congratulatory elitist knocking down strawmen and gloating about how puny his target is. You can't make this stuff up. And no, I didn't bother posting on his thread. Let him have his fun in his bubble. It's going to be quite a show watching him belittle every achievement Trump produces and gloat over every little slip irrespective of what it is. But back to your observation. The reason I haven't commented is because I have been looking into Pence and reading around. I was in identify correctly to judge correctly mode. And here is the conclusion (judgement-wise) I have preliminarily come up with. We are seeing the Art of the Deal in action. This is a taste of how Trump will neutralize hostility as he goes after the prize. Trump needed to offer some kind of concession to get the anti-Trumpers out of his way. He doesn't need their active support, he doesn't need them to campaign for him, but their constant yapping could eventually be leveraged by Clinton at an inopportune moment. Think of them like this. You are fighting a war, but there are people on your own side who, out of sheer ineptitude (and/or hurt feelings and/or plain old graft and corruption), are constantly planting landmines for you to step on. You don't need them to fight and, hell, you don't even want them to. You don't want them near a gun while they are near you. You're still fighting the enemy and can't afford too many distractions. You just want them to stop planting the goddamn landmines and go back to base camp. Trump needed someone at this moment who had common ground with him and common ground with them. So he did what he always does, he followed the money. Pence is pretty good moneywise in Indiana. As to the rest, Pence is flip-floppy and pragmatic enough to keep out of the way if and when Trump reads the riot act to him. Look at it from this angle. Let's presume a deal had to be made with the anti-Trumpers (and I believe it did to ensure smooth sailing--oh, I think Trump will win regardless, but he's hedging his position and I understand why). Who got the shit end of the stick in this deal, Trump or the anti-Trumpers? Barring Trump being assassinated, does anyone really believe Pence will have a strong influence over Trump in his administration? Does anyone think Pence will stand up to Trump, or rebel and go rogue if and when he disagrees with Trump? Maybe somebody thinks that, but I think he will go back home, have a beer and zone out on what a good life he has--and any and all anti-Trumper agendas be damned. Most of the establishment will have to swallow this beer with him and say it's good because their man is No. 2. That's called deal-making. Pence to Trump is like Biden to Obama. Nothing more and nothing less. Think about it (I know Trump has). How important has Vice President Biden been to President Obama in the big picture? In my view, he's been window dressing. I predict this will be the same for Mike Pence. And Trump still has Gingrich and Christie to put into active roles in his administration. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 (edited) Quote The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, speak to Lesley Stahl in their first joint interview The video at the link is the exclusive CBS News double-interview from 60 minutes last night. It answers a lot of questions I had about the cost/benefit of choosing Pence over Gingrich, Christie et al. If you haven't seen the two of them answering questions together, this is a must-view. I will try to embed the video here, but CBS uses a deprecated embed code ... [curses, it is bogus. Here is the audio extracted from the video, uploaded only briefly so I don't get DMCAed.] View More: 60 Minutes News|Live News|More News Videos Edited July 18, 2016 by william.scherk Revised embed code, which does work, after a fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 2 hours ago, william.scherk said: The video at the link is the exclusive CBS News double-interview from 60 minutes last night. It answers a lot of questions I had about the cost/benefit of choosing Pence over Gingrich, Christie et al. If you haven't seen the two of them answering questions together, this is a must-view. I will try to embed the video here, but CBS uses a deprecated embed code ... [curses, it is bogus. Here is the audio extracted from the video, uploaded only briefly so I don't get DMCAed.] View More: 60 Minutes News|Live News|More News Videos Thanks, watched this video, hadn't seen it yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Apparently, Hillary now has a 76% chance of winning, according to The Upshot's prediction model--but they are quick to point out that Trump could still win, as Hillary's chance of losing is about the same as an NBA player missing a free throw:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html Hillary's looking pretty happy in that photo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 On 7/16/2016 at 1:00 PM, KorbenDallas said: I think it's a safe pick, Pence being someone that won't steal the spotlight, but when he gets to the podium he does a good job and an eventual yes-man if he isn't already. This pick seems to be more about Trump than anything else, so I don't think Trump's policy principles will be affected much, but it does seem to illuminate more of Trump's egotistical side (some would say narcissistic side). Pence is almost a non-pick pick.. My wife and I watched the Trump/Pence 60 Minutes interview last night. Painful to watch, I tell you. Pence looked like somebody had a shiv to his ribs. Trump treated him like a teenager at his first job interview, with dad watching his every answer and sometimes interrupting. Trump was in "charming, somewhat crazy Uncle Donald" mode, which would be far more entertaining if he didn't have about a 42% chance of becoming President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) I missed that interview, damn! but I won't be missing any more. I am loving the Trumporama. Full disclosure re the last year or so of the hitting and running for my many, many fans. I have just been in the hospital for a few days, which I have been sporadically as more or less ill for that time .But that I will not be any more, and that I will not be missing Long short, I had a lung cancer operation, richly deserved for my 20years of smoking before good old Moralist pipes up, during which there was a slight cardiac event which is apparently extremely common. The operation, like Hers, was completely successful, but afterwards I did not regain strength and stamina although sufficiently oxygenated. I figured I was just not -pushing myself enough to exercise -- my previous idea of a workout being to carry heavy books to and from the library. But I lost more strength and thirty pounds and was always fainting, and it did not help it was the coldest winter on record here. Finally I was dragged to the ER by Andy (my son) (I was far too exhausted to get to the doctor's office). I had anemia,it seemed, hemoglobin 20something. I got 2 units of blood and felt like the Vampire Lestat after an specially fulfilling date This isn't especially short, is it? I'll wrap up-- it took a long time to find out why I was losing that much red cells, there was other stuff, but as of now everything has been fixed for good and whereas before all this I felt much much older than my 113 years , now I do not feel a day over 99. It has not all been negative either.To be unable to do anything except lie in bed and read is my idea of a good time, and I got to do a lot of that. I got a lot of very valuable stuff I could never have paid for in a million years, such as the services of a rock-star top thoracic surgeon, for free. Lots of free board and lodging and oxygen at home and an intimate knowledge of many, many medical tests and procedures. And only 10 of the pounds I lost came back. You know, think I got exactly what I deserved. But where, O where is our Adam? Edited July 20, 2016 by caroljane to paragraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Carol, I am horrified you went through the fire and so glad you came out the other end. Dayaamm! You getting sick is unacceptable. I do not approve... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 On 7/20/2016 at 11:11 AM, caroljane said: Long short, I had a lung cancer operation, richly deserved for my 20years of smoking before good old Moralist pipes up, during which there was a slight cardiac event which is apparently extremely common. The operation, like Hers, was completely successful, but afterwards I did not regain strength and stamina although sufficiently oxygenated. I figured I was just not -pushing myself enough to exercise -- my previous idea of a workout being to carry heavy books to and from the library. But I lost more strength and thirty pounds and was always fainting, and it did not help it was the coldest winter on record here. Finally I was dragged to the ER by Andy (my son) (I was far too exhausted to get to the doctor's office). I had anemia,it seemed, hemoglobin 20something. I got 2 units of blood and felt like the Vampire Lestat after an specially fulfilling date This isn't especially short, is it? I'll wrap up-- it took a long time to find out why I was losing that much red cells, there was other stuff, but as of now everything has been fixed for good and whereas before all this I felt much much older than my 113 years , now I do not feel a day over 99. It has not all been negative either.To be unable to do anything except lie in bed and read is my idea of a good time, and I got to do a lot of that. I got a lot of very valuable stuff I could never have paid for in a million years, such as the services of a rock-star top thoracic surgeon, for free. Lots of free board and lodging and oxygen at home and an intimate knowledge of many, many medical tests and procedures. And only 10 of the pounds I lost came back. You know, think I got exactly what I deserved. But where, O where is our Adam? I don't know how I missed this Update until now. Thanks for the details of the story of your life. You are so frank and matter-of-fact. I am so glad you survived. Selfishly happy, and happy for you, too. The best news is you are feeling not at your worst, with unwellness behind you and iron in your blood. Re Adam, I have asked a few times here and backstage, but no news. Someone may have his phone number/email. Let's hope it is something that hasn't taken him away from us permanently. He would so be relishing the daily Trumporama, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 On 7/19/2016 at 3:43 PM, KorbenDallas said: Apparently, Hillary now has a 76% chance of winning, according to The Upshot's prediction model--but they are quick to point out that Trump could still win, as Hillary's chance of losing is about the same as an NBA player missing a free throw:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html Hillary's looking pretty happy in that photo.. Nate Silver is a devote Bayesian and he will update his predictions with each new piece of data pertaining to the election. In Bayesian estimation new evidence is entered and a new posterior probability is computed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Don't think people are really grasping how plausible it is that Trump could become president. It's a close election right now. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 On 7/20/2016 at 11:11 AM, caroljane said: I missed that interview, damn! but I won't be missing any more. I am loving the Trumporama. Full disclosure re the last year or so of the hitting and running for my many, many fans. I have just been in the hospital for a few days, which I have been sporadically as more or less ill for that time .But that I will not be any more, and that I will not be missing Long short, I had a lung cancer operation, richly deserved for my 20years of smoking before good old Moralist pipes up, during which there was a slight cardiac event which is apparently extremely common. The operation, like Hers, was completely successful, but afterwards I did not regain strength and stamina although sufficiently oxygenated. I figured I was just not -pushing myself enough to exercise -- my previous idea of a workout being to carry heavy books to and from the library. But I lost more strength and thirty pounds and was always fainting, and it did not help it was the coldest winter on record here. Finally I was dragged to the ER by Andy (my son) (I was far too exhausted to get to the doctor's office). I had anemia,it seemed, hemoglobin 20something. I got 2 units of blood and felt like the Vampire Lestat after an specially fulfilling date This isn't especially short, is it? I'll wrap up-- it took a long time to find out why I was losing that much red cells, there was other stuff, but as of now everything has been fixed for good and whereas before all this I felt much much older than my 113 years , now I do not feel a day over 99. It has not all been negative either.To be unable to do anything except lie in bed and read is my idea of a good time, and I got to do a lot of that. I got a lot of very valuable stuff I could never have paid for in a million years, such as the services of a rock-star top thoracic surgeon, for free. Lots of free board and lodging and oxygen at home and an intimate knowledge of many, many medical tests and procedures. And only 10 of the pounds I lost came back. You know, think I got exactly what I deserved. But where, O where is our Adam? Welcome back! Glad you're still with us and got those 10 lbs back. I don't know about Adam, but he's a political animal and may be directly involved in someone's campaign. --Brant Adam was last here May 10--maybe he got tired of the "Donald Trump" thread, especially with this new format which drives threads with only a few postings over time into undeserved and almost instant oblivion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 TRUMP now leads in 538's now-cast, our estimate of what would happen in an election today. https://t.co/djsqNajFrh pic.twitter.com/7DvrdieHOw — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 25, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 William, A few minutes before your post, I put the following on the Trump thread. I'm repeating it here because it probably belongs here. 44 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Nate Silver is finally starting to correct his bias. NATE SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today I'm also glad to see that Silver is cleaning out the bugs in his methodology and becoming more objective. Imagine what his life is going to be like in future elections after, in this cycle, he predicts all the states that will go to Trump during Trump's election. He will get his mantle of poll guru back. (I'm just posting this in this way to mess with William, our dear WSS. ) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 25, 2016 Author Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: William, A few minutes before your post, I put the following on the Trump thread. I'm repeating it here because it probably belongs here. Michael Nate Silver is a devout Bayesian. Unlike sampling based statistical inference Bayesian estimates can be revised with each new piece of evidence factored in. Please see: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-That-Would-Not-Die/dp/0300188226/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469461729&sr=1-1&keywords=the+theory+that+would+not+die The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy Alan Turing reinvented Bayesian inference as part of his work at Bletchley Park. In the 1940s Bayesian Statistical Inference had not achieved the status that it now has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Fun with election forecasts ... 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: A few minutes before your post, I put the following on the Trump thread. I'm repeating it here because it probably belongs here. "(I'm just posting this in this way to mess with William, our dear WSS. )" 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Nate Silver is finally starting to correct his bias. Well, to my mind, no. The methodology has not been changed since 538 unveiled their 2016 forecast products, as I am sure you understand, if not from the Business Insider article. There are three kinds of 'forecasts' that 538 releases. Today's is an example of a "Now-cast," and the other two are examples of "polls-only" and "polls plus." You can read about the differences here. Quote NATE SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today I'm also glad to see that Silver is cleaning out the bugs in his methodology and becoming more objective. You can't always get what you want. Curious folks and unhappy analytical folks dig into the details of stories, query the 'facts,' assemble a coherent narrative informed by the interrogation. If someone will claim that 538 has changed its methodology on the fly -- I will wonder if that that someone understands the methodologies in the first place. It suggests someone is incurious or has long finished interrogating 538's nuts and bolts. A 'fixed mindset'? Perhaps. I think Bob (in between shifts on the Muslim Boxcar Barge) is trying to underline the 'inputs' from newest scientific polls are, well, put into the 538 models (in other words, in other words -- models are designed on Bayesian principles). The way I understand the issue, the three models have not changed in underlying methodology since the three forecast models were unveiled. Does that make sense? "Becoming more objective" is a great personal goal. One wonderful thing about good faith forum discussion is that mistakes can be corrected, misapprehensions brought in line with reality; discussants can fix error, fill gaps in knowledge -- and each move on smarter or better-informed. Here, to round out the 538 offerings, are the updated-by-fresh-data Polls-plus forecast and the Polls-only forecast in graphic form, to supplement the If Held Today 'Now-cast' ... Polls-plus: Polls-only: Click on each image above to go to the corresponding 538 page, each of which has a wealth of information in interactive form (ie, drill down into the state stats, drill down into contributory polls). And it pays to remember the Consumer's Guide to Election Polls. Edited July 25, 2016 by william.scherk Added links, clarified my views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: If someone will claim that 538 has changed its methodology on the fly -- I will wonder if that that someone understands the methodologies in the first place. William, My goodness, is that a gotcha and all? Let's suppose you're right to doubt. So me being a mook and all, let's suppose I needed some 'splainin'... Well Rush Limbaugh jus' 'splained it for me (see Trump Poll Bounce Rattles Experts from his show this morning). Here is Rush 'splainin' Nate Silver: Quote Last week, ladies and gentlemen, Nate Silver -- the vaunted Nate Silver, formerly of the New York Times and now of his own website, FiveThirtyEight.com... This is a guy that the Democrats relied on for comfort. He was their guru during the 2012 presidential campaign. Nate Silver then was analyzing polls. That's what he does. He analyzes polls; then makes percentage predictions based on his unique analysis. "Only Nate Silver does what he does!" So goes the reputation. Only Nate Silver has secret ways of analyzing results and making in-depth predictions based on whoever's likely to win, not by margin although other polling units do. And last week, Nate Silver was telling all of Democrats (summarized), "Don't sweat it! Right now, we got Trump at maybe 10 to 15% chance of winning the White House." Well, Business Insider: "Nate Silver: Donald Trump Would Most Likely Win the Election if it Were Held Today." Remember, Democrats believe this guy. This guy is an oracle. "If the election were held [today]," and, of course, it isn't, but if it were, "Donald Trump would likely win. That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver projected [today] for his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight. In his 'Now-cast' election model for who would win if ballots were cast [today], Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency," up from 10 or 15%. Whatever it was, it was miniscule just a week ago. "Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls [today]. ... However, in Silver's polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast..." See, this is why this is special. Nobody else has a "polls-only" or "polls-plus," but Nate Silver does! In his "polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast, Clinton was still favored to come out on top. "In the polls-only model, Clinton had a 53.7% chance of winning, while in the polls-plus model, Silver gave Clinton a 58.2% chance of winning in November. But those numbers are a drastic drop-off from where they recently were -- hovering around 80%." Nate Silver tweeted, "Don't think people are really grasping how plausible it is that Trump could become president. It's a close election right now." He's trying to warn 'em. He's trying to warn the Democrats that things are much worse. Let's see if I can extract a few choice phrases from the quote above to help my poor stoopid mook self to understand The Oracle. This is a guy that the Democrats relied on for comfort... (Probably my favorite comment from above. ) Nate Silver then was analyzing polls. That's what he does. He analyzes polls; then makes percentage predictions based on his unique analysis. (Oh... Now I get it! Silver looks at polls, he doesn't do polls! ) ... Nate Silver has secret ways of analyzing results and making in-depth predictions... (Oops... Secret ways? Now I don't get it. ) See, this is why this is special. Nobody else has a "polls-only" or "polls-plus," but Nate Silver does! (Now I think I get it... but maybe not... you know... hmmmm... ) I really like this part: And last week, Nate Silver was telling all of Democrats (summarized), "Don't sweat it! Right now, we got Trump at maybe 10 to 15% chance of winning the White House." . . . In his 'Now-cast' election model for who would win if ballots were cast [today], Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency," up from 10 or 15%. So Guru Nate Silver says Donald Trump's chances of winning jumped by 30-40% in one week? Last week Trump wasn't even in the running, but this week he's winning? Last week Trump was a statistical nobody, but this week he's everything? One week? Dayaamm! That's one hell of a jump for one hell of an algorithm, especially since nothing else in the news reflected such a sharp jump (not even the RNC convention). And, of course, The Oracle didn't, he wouldn't, he couldn't, never ever ever ever change a single parameter in his methodology. This dood's Al Go Rim mus has X-Ray vision into the Meericun colture or sumpin... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: William, My goodness, is that a gotcha and all? Let's suppose you're right to doubt. So me being a mook and all, let's suppose I needed some 'splainin'... Well Rush Limbaugh jus' 'splained it for me (see Trump Poll Bounce Rattles Experts from his show this morning). Here is Rush 'splainin' Nate Silver: Let's see if I can extract a few choice phrases from the quote above to help my poor stoopid mook self to understand The Oracle. This is a guy that the Democrats relied on for comfort... (Probably my favorite comment from above. ) Nate Silver then was analyzing polls. That's what he does. He analyzes polls; then makes percentage predictions based on his unique analysis. (Oh... Now I get it! Silver looks at polls, he doesn't do polls! ) ... Nate Silver has secret ways of analyzing results and making in-depth predictions... (Oops... Secret ways? Now I don't get it. ) See, this is why this is special. Nobody else has a "polls-only" or "polls-plus," but Nate Silver does! (Now I think I get it... but maybe not... you know... hmmmm... ) I really like this part: And last week, Nate Silver was telling all of Democrats (summarized), "Don't sweat it! Right now, we got Trump at maybe 10 to 15% chance of winning the White House." . . . In his 'Now-cast' election model for who would win if ballots were cast [today], Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency," up from 10 or 15%. So Guru Nate Silver says Donald Trump's chances of winning jumped by 30-40% in one week? Last week Trump wasn't even in the running, but this week he's winning? Last week Trump was a statistical nobody, but this week he's everything? One week? Dayaamm! That's one hell of a jump for one hell of an algorithm, especially since nothing else in the news reflected such a sharp jump (not even the RNC convention). And, of course, The Oracle didn't, he wouldn't, he couldn't, never ever ever ever change a single parameter in his methodology. This dood's Al Go Rim mus has X-Ray vision into the Meericun colture or sumpin... Michael Trump's chances changed even more than, Michael, it's more than a 30 or 40% jump in chances. When Silver said Trump had a 15% chance of winning, that means a one in six, almost seven, chance. Now he says a 57.5% chance of winning, which means a one in 1.74, chance. (A little better than 50/50, 50%, which would be a one in two chance.) From one in almost seven, to one in less than two. His chances more than tripled, in one week, according to Silver. % chance, like 15 and 57.5 produces a "one in X chance" by dividing 100 by % examples: 100 divided by 50 is two. So 50% chance means one in two chance, which means we would have to run the election twice to be statistically confident of a Trump win. 100 divided by 15 is six, almost seven. So 15% chance means one in seven chance, which means if we ran the election six times it still wouldn't be enough repeats, statistically speaking, to achieve confidence of at least one Trump win. 100 divided by 99 is 1.01010101... So 99% chance means we would have to run the election slightly more than once in order to achieve confidence of a Trump win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 And that's putting Silver at 15% last week, when it was really 10 to 15%. Using 10%, he was saying Trump had a one in ten chance last week. From one in ten to one in less than two, (1.74). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 25, 2016 Share Posted July 25, 2016 If his chances had doubled, he'd go from one in ten to one in five. 10 divided by 5 is 2, double. If his chances had tripled, he'd go from one in ten to one in (three and one third). 10 divided by (three and one third) is 3, triple. But he went from 10 to 1.74, so it's far worse for Hillary than triple or even quadruple, 10 divided by 1.74 is 5.75. So he not only quintupled, but nearly sextupled his chances. Not exactly the sextupling for Trump that his detractors here assured us of, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now