U.S. Politics 2016 Seasonal Hiring Edition: "You're fired"

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But...they weren't undecideds. That's the point. They had said they were going to vote for Clinton. I would agree if it was the difference of the two that changed, but it wasn't. We went from something like  Clinton at 46% to Clinton at 43%. That's not undecideds changing. That's someone saying 'yes, going to vote for this person' to 'no, going to vote for someone else'. 

And that doesn't happen very often. 

A 3 point shit in prospective voters?  Yeah, that happens all the time.  That's why we have the Likert scale.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Seems reasonable to factor in the "too ashamed to admit they are voting for Trump" thing as well.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

A 3 point shit in prospective voters?  Yeah, that happens all the time.  That's why we have the Likert scale.

A 3 point shift in prospective voters across all polls. That doesn't happen all the time, and it doesn't happen all in the same direction. 

I mean, you can also read Nate Silver's take on it too. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Seems reasonable to factor in the "too ashamed to admit they are voting for Trump" thing as well.  

This was also talked about at length - the 'shy Trump voter'  - and was largely debunked.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Seems reasonable to factor in the "too ashamed to admit they are voting for Trump" thing as well.  

Agreed.

Just now, Kalbear said:

A 3 point shift in prospective voters across all polls. That doesn't happen all the time, and it doesn't happen all in the same direction. 

I mean, you can also read Nate Silver's take on it too. 

 

A 3 point shift when you factor in all that I have already recounted at the beginning of this discussion is not that surprising.  And don't cite Nate Silver to me.  It just makes me lose any sense of credibility on your part - the guy simply looks at aggregate polls which is the "Lennie" approach to political analysis.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

A 3 point shift when you factor in all that I have already recounted at the beginning of this discussion is not that surprising.  And don't cite Nate Silver to me.  It just makes me lose any sense of credibility on your part - the guy simply looks at aggregate polls which is the "Lennie" approach to political analysis.

Okay - please explain how every single poll showed Clinton's numbers - not her difference, her numbers - decrease in the last week, and point to me a similar poll in the last 30 years other than 1980. By all means, do so. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay - please explain how every single poll showed Clinton's numbers - not her difference, her numbers - decrease in the last week, and point to me a similar poll in the last 30 years other than 1980. By all means, do so. 

I like how first, you do allow for a precedent.  Second, my original point precisely was that this election was different than any previous elections other than 1980 and 1992.  Now, after hashing out logic, you want me to cite data I originally qualified as irregular.  Where will the goalposts be next, sir??

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I like how first, you do allow for a precedent.  Second, my original point precisely was that this election was different than any previous elections other than 1980 and 1992.  Now, after hashing out logic, you want me to cite data I originally qualified as irregular.  Where will the goalposts be next, sir??

I pointed out why 1980 was similar to 2016 - that there was a very late event (the hostage crisis resolution) that swung things away from Carter. This has already been pretty well documented in the past. Why bring it up again? If you have another analysis for why that changed other than the hostage crisis, by all means, do present it. 

My point was that swings without cause don't happen. Even in weird-ass elections like this. Drops from one candidate don't happen. More undecideds coming home to roost? Yeah, that happens all the time - but people deciding one week to vote for a candidate and the next week changing their mind entirely? That doesn't happen. 

Again, I ask - point out an election where a president's poll numbers actually dropped (not the difference, the raw scores) that wasn't attributable to an actual event, that happened late in the election. Or heck, do it period. If you really want to say that everything about this election was a special snowflake, well, cool beans - there should be some way to check out that, too - feel free to demonstrate that. I've provided actual analysis indicating my side; you have not. For someone who is really caring about demonstration based on data and analysis instead of taking hive mind's point of view, you've provided scant data or analysis. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

. If you really want to say that everything about this election was a special snowflake, well, cool beans - there should be some way to check out that, too - feel free to demonstrate that.

Trump was truly singular in the history of presidential candidates, wasn't he? He is a very special snowflake that seems to defy common logic or patterns to a fair degree, methinks.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Trump was truly singular in the history of presidential candidates, wasn't he? He is a very special snowflake that seems to defy common logic or patterns to a fair degree, methinks.

Somewhat? There's a lot of things that seem pretty similar though. The Republicans voted for Trump at the same rate that they did Romney and McCain, the turnout was largely similar for Republicans (a bit more in the rust belt, but a bit less elsewhere). If you take out all the weird circus shenanigans that happened and just look at polling numbers and data from the election, things turned out almost exactly like what a 'generic republican candidate' would have done. Remember, in a typical campaign Republicans were due to win this year based on incumbency, economy, war, etc. 

There's a reason that the guy who took those 11 data points could predict and stood by a Trump win even after others were all 'wha'. But again, there should be a way to hypothesize 'this was a special snowflake' and check information to get that confirmed or at least somewhat backed up. As it stands, the final national polls had Clinton +2 or +3, and she got +2. That doesn't, to me, say 'special snowflake'. Similarly, the polls prior to Comey had her at +4/+5, and the difference was her actually dropping her value (and not Trump increasing solely). That polls after Comey indicated that drop has a strong correlation with that news mattering. Sure, it's possible that it wasn't the case, but polls aren't like random weather fluctuations when they all go one direction at the same time. 

[mcbigski]

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per the WaPo site, there is a ton. But Trump already starts at a massive deficit: he hasn't released his personal tax returns, hasn't revealed what his financial status is in various places, and hasn't done the basic stuff all presidents have done previously. Good luck being transparent before that. 

We won't find a mutually credible site to measure by.  WaPo is just lefty fake news like NYT.

[Kalbear]

Just now, mcbigski said:

We won't find a mutually credible site to measure by.  WaPo is just lefty fake news like NYT.

Wow. Okay. What would you consider 'credible' then?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Somewhat? There's a lot of things that seem pretty similar though. The Republicans voted for Trump at the same rate that they did Romney and McCain, the turnout was largely similar for Republicans (a bit more in the rust belt, but a bit less elsewhere). If you take out all the weird circus shenanigans that happened and just look at polling numbers and data from the election, things turned out almost exactly like what a 'generic republican candidate' would have done. Remember, in a typical campaign Republicans were due to win this year based on incumbency, economy, war, etc. 

There's a reason that the guy who took those 11 data points could predict and stood by a Trump win even after others were all 'wha'. But again, there should be a way to hypothesize 'this was a special snowflake' and check information to get that confirmed or at least somewhat backed up. As it stands, the final national polls had Clinton +2 or +3, and she got +2. That doesn't, to me, say 'special snowflake'. Similarly, the polls prior to Comey had her at +4/+5, and the difference was her actually dropping her value (and not Trump increasing solely). That polls after Comey indicated that drop has a strong correlation with that news mattering. Sure, it's possible that it wasn't the case, but polls aren't like random weather fluctuations when they all go one direction at the same time. 

 Agree strongly with the bolded bit. I think much of this boils down to the simple pendulum swing. I know that is an oversimplification to a degree.

I think Clinton's lack of charisma played a big part as well. As disgusting as Trump is, he is also compelling, and Clinton simply is not.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I pointed out why 1980 was similar to 2016 - that there was a very late event (the hostage crisis resolution) that swung things away from Carter. This has already been pretty well documented in the past. Why bring it up again? If you have another analysis for why that changed other than the hostage crisis, by all means, do present it. 

Um, I'm not sure you understand the history of the Iran hostage crisis.  The hostages weren't released until the very day of Reagan's inauguration, so no, it did not have much of an effect on the actual election other than the general frustration towards Carter for his very public failure in extracting the Americans.  (Whether that was a "corrupt bargain" between Reagan and Iran is very much open to discussion, but neither here nor there IRT relevance).

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My point was that swings without cause don't happen. Even in weird-ass elections like this. Drops from one candidate don't happen. More undecideds coming home to roost? Yeah, that happens all the time - but people deciding one week to vote for a candidate and the next week changing their mind entirely? That doesn't happen. 

 

I never said the change was without cause.  I very much agree there was likely a certain cause - and may well have been the impact of fake news, Comey, or the Russia hacks.  Alternatives include her deficiencies as a candidate.  Anyway, my impetus for posting was simply to point out your ignorance in assuming as such when we DO NOT KNOW - and, more importantly, subsequently concluding we're living in a Trump autocracy.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I've provided actual analysis indicating my side; you have not. For someone who is really caring about demonstration based on data and analysis instead of taking hive mind's point of view, you've provided scant data or analysis. 

 I haven't provided data because I come on here for fun when I'm drunk.  Be glad to, but please point me to anything you've provided that helps your argument.  As I've already detailed, one of the two links you've provided actually greatly supports my overall point that plenty of likely voters were distinctly unsure about their vote choice - more so than most if not all previous elections.  And the other one is a banal NBC poll.  So...yeah.  Not seeing your "actual analysis" in the least.

 

[TrackerNeil]

53 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

We won't find a mutually credible site to measure by.  WaPo is just lefty fake news like NYT.

So then you're saying in a roundabout way that there really are no facts you'll accept, because if they don't fit what you already think they must come from "lefty fake" sources. OK.

[Suttree]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

WaPo is just lefty fake news like NYT.

Fing hell. Is Charlie Sykes' breakdown of what conservatives commentators did to mainstream media seriously this true?! 

Quote

“We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody. Let’s say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it’s a falsehood,” he explained. “The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that. ‘By the way, you know it’s false.’ And they’ll say, ‘Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.’ Or they’ll say, ‘I saw it on a Facebook page.’ And I’ll say, ‘The New York Times did a fact check.’ And they’ll say, Oh, that’s The New York Times. That’s bullshit.'”

Only one party has objectively made science, empirical data, and facts on any given topic, etc. out to be the enemy. The next President of the US has flat out lied more than any other candidate in history and somehow that was ok with enough of the minority of voters to get him elected. Look, the "fake news"  NY Times has won more Pulitzers than any other news organization in history. While they certainly have a left leaning viewpoint, if the WaPo and NY Times are "fake news" how in the living hell would you characterize sites like Drudge or Breitbart?

FYI for those that are looking for a breakdown of where various new sites fall I've found Media Bias Factcheck to be useful.

[mcbigski]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Wow. Okay. What would you consider 'credible' then?

Never the twain shall meet I suspect. 

What are the political donations of WaPo employees over the last 10 president elections?  

Can you actually think there isn't a bias?

[mcbigski]

Hasn't NYT been red apologists since at least Walter Durranty? 

[Ordos]

Where do you all see yourselves on January 20th/21st (depending on the timezone)? It will be midnight or 1 o'clock where I live (also depending on daylight savings). After watching Drumpf take the oath of office, I will either walk away or turn off the TV because I'm not giving Drumpf the luxury of more attention than necessary. If I'm watching with others, I might need to leave the TV on.

I will mark that moment as the end of the 'good old days' and the 'dark and bleak present'.

[Week]

58 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Never the twain shall meet I suspect. 

What are the political donations of WaPo employees over the last 10 president elections?  

Can you actually think there isn't a bias?

What are the political donations of WaPo employees over the last 10 elections? (Source plz)

Can you actually think there is a bias? - Note: Bias, as in, to the point of calling it even Lefty let alone 'Lefty fake news'. With that 'logic' any news that isn't Newsmax, Infowars, Brietbart, or Drudge is Lefty Fake News.

Conventional wisdom would be that it leans Left - as do facts, logic, and ethics. ;-)