Jump to content

US Poll-itics


Relic

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

These are strange times though. Trump can claim that markets were great before the pandemic, and I keep hearing speculation that third quarter GDP may be the highest ever and it's about to be announced. The markets will love that I'd assume, and Trump will crow about it before the election. What they won't say though that growth from the second quarter was the worst since....The Great Depression. 

I'm extremely skeptical that there are a lot of voters out there who care about GDP numbers at this point.  Maybe it helps combat voter fatigue for Republicans who need to get out and vote on election day, but I'm already assuming those people are showing up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You've never heard me explain why I'm wearing the same blouse 2 days in a row.

You're a member of The Revolution?

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm extremely skeptical that there are a lot of voters out there who care about GDP numbers at this point.  Maybe it helps combat voter fatigue for Republicans who need to get out and vote on election day, but I'm already assuming those people are showing up. 

I'm not sure what the impact will ultimately be, but it will be a plus for Trump. A lot of people won't even understand what the numbers mean, they'll just know it's big and possibly take it as a sign that we've defeated the virus like our idiot president says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article detailing QAnon's obsession with adrenochrome.  By far, my favorite part of the article:

Quote

Aldous Huxley described it in his 1954 book The Doors of Perception; Anthony Burgess nicknamed it ‘drenchrom’ in the argot of A Clockwork Orange. Frank Herbert described a character in Destination: Void as so high “he looked like someone who had just eaten a handful of pineal glands and washed them down with a pint of adrenochrome.” But most famously, gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson got offered a “tiny taste” from his unhinged lawyer in a scene from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. 

“That stuff makes pure mescaline seem like ginger beer,” the lawyer said. “You’ll go completely crazy if you take too much.”

The compound’s supposedly psychedelic properties have been debunked, in part by Thompson himself, who reportedly told Terry Gilliam, director of the black comedy’s adaptation, that he had invented its effects. Eduardo Hidalgo Downing, a Spanish writer behind the meandering drug memoir Adrenochrome and Other Mythical Drugs, described it as “an absolute bullshit,” [sic], adding that “it is of no value in psychoactive terms... it is infinitely more useful to drink a cup of coffee.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, @DMC - that was funny! 

So tell me - what is the degree of error you would do here? In actual science you determine the error margin empirically based on your hypothesis - and more importantly you do this based on observed data assuming the experiment remains the same. If you run experiments with different bases and don't control the others you would almost immediately consider that experiment to be inconclusive. Not because it didn't do something but because you simply have no way to differentiate correlation from causation. 

My contention is that the variables involved in this are not particularly staying the same. 

And you're right - we do have early voting in the past elections. WA should be super easy to predict for instance! But a lot of states are doing it at scale for the first time ever, so that is a big change. While Shelby has been gone since 2014, this is the first election where the 40 year old rule against Republicans and polling places has been repealed and they are free to do a lot more intimidation. This is the first time in our modern history that we have have an actual massive contagion going on during an election. And this is the first election in modern history where we have a potus actively and loudly interfering. If you think that means that polling errors can be only around 3 points i think it is you that is not taking into account science.

So yes, I think that the incredible amount of talking about +2 point movement in statewide polling is not scientific and the analysis is puerile at best. I'm going to keep trolling it the same way I'd troll dumbass NFL fans who rate qbs on their winning %. Anyone who is confident in any result at this point is just not looking at the actual data. I agree with @Ran that it would take a massive polling error or a stolen election for Trump to win; where I disagree is that I think it is very likely either - or both - of those things may happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Killjoybear said:

So tell me - what is the degree of error you would do here? In actual science you determine the error margin empirically based on your hypothesis - and more importantly you do this based on observed data assuming the experiment remains the same. If you run experiments with different bases and don't control the others you would almost immediately consider that experiment to be inconclusive. Not because it didn't do something but because you simply have no way to differentiate correlation from causation.

The "degree of error" is statistically determined by the model and the volatility of the variables.  Obviously, other than lab experiments, all social science cannot recreate the controlled environment of the hard sciences.  If you want to do dismiss all non-experimental social science because of this, that's your call.

4 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

My contention is that the variables involved in this are not particularly staying the same. 

Variables, by definition, don't stay the same.

6 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

If you think that means that polling errors can be only around 3 points i think it is you that is not taking into account science.

Never said that...

6 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

So yes, I think that the incredible amount of talking about +2 point movement in statewide polling is not scientific and the analysis is puerile at best. I'm going to keep trolling it the same way I'd troll dumbass NFL fans who rate qbs on their winning %. Anyone who is confident in any result at this point is just not looking at the actual data.

Never said I was confident in any result either.  You, however, have suggested multiple times in the past 24 hours that essentially all polling is pointless because of all the differences in this election - and explicitly stated these differences render all prior data useless.  That is not remotely the same as "talking about a +2 movement" and is inarguably an anti-science perspective.  Enjoy your pathetic trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example of mail in voting and how weird it is this year- we have not had a post office unable to reliably deliver local mail 6 days before an election. But now we do! How many people are going to mail their ballots and have them not count? 

Now in this case I would imagine this would help Biden as more early voting seems to be for him - but who knows? More dems have asked for more mail ballots too, so it might hurt more. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The "degree of error" is statistically determined by the model and the volatility of the variables.  Obviously, other than lab experiments, all social science cannot recreate the controlled environment of the hard sciences.  If you want to do dismiss all non-experimental social science because of this, that's your call.

Social science is a lot of times pretty garbage. This social science in particular with only one experiment every 4 years is super garbage. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Variables, by definition, don't stay the same.

Variables can stay the same depending on the experiment. They are changeable. There is a phrase "controlling the variables". Perhaps you've heard it?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Never said I was confident in any result either.  You, however, have suggested multiple times in the past 24 hours that essentially all polling is pointless because of all the differences in this election - and explicitly stated these differences render all prior data useless.  That is not remotely the same as "talking about a +2 movement" and is inarguably an anti-science perspective.  Enjoy your pathetic trolling.

It is emphatically not an anti science perspective to throw out garbage data and say that it is inconclusive. Getting bad data and making conclusions from it is more anti science than that! 

That said, polling might be useful as far as measuring relative results. You can see movements that way, and see some trends. Things are favoring Biden more than they were - that's a pretty reasonable conclusion looking at more of the recent polling. It doesn't say he will win or where he will win - but at least it says he is doing better now than before. But other than that? Not much else to say given the magnitude of potential error. 

Also, its interesting - you've not stuck your neck out at all. Wonder why that is. Others have, but you - you've been remarkably cowardly here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Damnit Fez! I expected you to be an expert on this.

(seriously though, it may be the most bizarre conspiracy theory I've ever heard)

It's only really an evolution on one of the aspects of ritual cannibalism, that by eating a person you take on their power. 'Twas a thing believed by a lot of pre-industrial societies, and undertaken, I believe, especially by the victor after a battle. It's not really surprising, when you think about it, when this conspiracy is mostly believed by people who believe demonic possession is an actual thing. It is also metaphorically represented in 'Highlander' with the whole chop the head off and absorb the power thing, to become "The One", once you've eliminated all your competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

And you're right - we do have early voting in the past elections. WA should be super easy to predict for instance! But a lot of states are doing it at scale for the first time ever, so that is a big change. While Shelby has been gone since 2014, this is the first election where the 40 year old rule against Republicans and polling places has been repealed and they are free to do a lot more intimidation. This is the first time in our modern history that we have have an actual massive contagion going on during an election. And this is the first election in modern history where we have a potus actively and loudly interfering. If you think that means that polling errors can be only around 3 points i think it is you that is not taking into account science.

I feel like you are not reassessing your priors in the face of new information.  On voter intimidation, we are seeing more of it than before, but not really that much more.  There are a few articles about people having to walk past a crowd of yelling Trump supporters to vote or a line of trucks honking and waving flags, but those are fairly sporadic and IMO still pretty minor.  I actually think it's kinda backfiring because black voters get really pissed off when people try to interfere with their voting rights (and rightly so!)  If gangs of militias are going to interfere with the vote pre-election, what are they waiting for?  Because this is looking like to me like something that is complete bullshit for the individual people who have to deal with it, but a nonfactor in terms of national political impact. 

Likewise you mention COVID.  Yes, it's a new element, but why would that benefit Trump?  Right now the virus is surging and Trump is the one who told all his voters to wait till election day, which is a fantastically stupid political strategy. 

Trump is going to try and interfere with the election and no doubt he'll try and bring the entire Republican political apparatus to bear to help him.  But the President himself has little influence on the actual election administration - he is relying on the loyalty of state and federal Republican officeholders.  If it's close, yes, they'll go along with it.  If the election is decided by just PA and there's some arcane interpretation of the rules that allows SCOTUS to stop counting ballots, yes that is a real possibility.  But if the polls are relatively right, Trump is losing in 6-8 states he needs to win in order to be president, and all of which have different election rules, different judges, and a ton of players.  Getting every single one of them to go along with this coup sounds like an achievement beyond the reach of Bismark or Roosevelt, let alone this collection of grifters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

Variables can stay the same depending on the experiment. They are changeable. There is a phrase "controlling the variables". Perhaps you've heard it?

No, when analyzing human behavior the environment is inherently going to be different in each "experiment" outside of the lab.  And like I said, all elections are unique and you could make a compelling argument that virtually every election involves such different conditions to render all prior data moot.  In 2016 it was the first time a woman was the major party nominee, the other nominee was the first with no prior political/military experience, and the two of them were the least liked major nominees in the history of polling.  In 2008, we had the first major party black nominee and the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression (which preceded polling).  2004 was the first post-9/11 contest and we were in the midst of the most significant war since Vietnam.  Like I said, shitting on all of social science is your prerogative, but it is also decidedly anti-science.

As for "controlling the variables," no, I've never heard that phrase.  What I do know of is including control variables that are fixed, which all the models you're referring to do employ.  

16 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

It is emphatically not an anti science perspective to throw out garbage data and say that it is inconclusive. Getting bad data and making conclusions from it is more anti science than that! 

Except it's only "bad data" in your warped perspective, and in actuality is based on well-founded data that, generally, has elicited probabilities that correspond to the outcome with marginal errors.

18 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

Also, its interesting - you've not stuck your neck out at all. Wonder why that is. Others have, but you - you've been remarkably cowardly here. 

Ha!  So, one side of your mouth is spewing horseshit about how these data and subsequent models are entirely useless, and on the other side you're calling me cowardly for "not sticking my neck out" based on such models?  What exactly do you want me to stick my neck out in saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Maithanet - I don't know that it'll help Trump! I said above that it might hurt because there have been more late voters that are Republicans. I've said before that the polls might be super off and in favor of Biden, especially in states people aren't expecting to go his way. 

And thats my real point here- its not that Trump will win - though I remain pessimistic there. Its that the polls are more likely than any time in our polling history to be comically, hilariously wrong, especially at the state level. And using them as a gauge of anything other than relative movement is not particularly going to be accurate.

As to the intimidation-  you're possibly right! But its also possible they will do it at the last minute so that it is harder to stop and will be more disruptive. We don't know!

As to Trump being able to do a coup - he is pretty weak. The rnc however is not, and the one place Trump has spent money on is lawsuits in states for precisely this outcome. The flip side to your argument is that as bad as Republicans have been, dems have been arguably even less competent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "Anonymous" -- who wrote a NY op-ed and a book, stating that they were part of "the Resistance" within the administration who were doing what they could to stop Trump's worst impulses -- turns out to be ... Miles Taylor, former chief of staff to Kirsjten Nielsen and Chad Wolfe at DHS (though he wasn't CoS when he wrote the piece). A lot of commentary, mostly underwhelmed, as he's been out there beating the drum against Trump quite openly since he quit the administration when he personally witnessed the occasion Trump promised DHS officials pardons for any crimes they committed in furthering his anti-immigration policies:

1) The NYT is, rightly, getting a lot of criticism for saying he was a "senior administration official" when at the time of the op-ed he was just a deputy CoS. Bunch of people in the media ragging on them (including, by the by, Jonathan Swann... which is useful to know when trying to judge his sources at Axios).

2) Of all the people Anonymous could be, Miles Taylor is kind of the least exciting choice, but the most obvious -- and in a way, the fact that he has been openly waging a campaign against Trump since he quit, doing interviews, endorsing opponents of the administration, etc, does earn him some credit.

3) That said, he's a lifelong GOP guy, and as others note, right now the exigencies of the election means he hasn't been pressed about his involvement in the family separation abomination that DHS perpetrated at Trump's command. But he probably should be pressed about it, if not now then after November 3rdf, because he's going to have to explain himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Ha!  So, one side of your mouth is spewing horseshit about how these data and subsequent models are entirely useless, and on the other side you're calling me cowardly for "not sticking my neck out" based on such models?  What exactly do you want me to stick my neck out in saying?

I'm not the one claiming the models are good and that things are predictable. If you're confident in that it stands to reason that you would show it. But you haven't, which to me implies that for all you're talking shit to me you're pretty doubtful too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

So "Anonymous" -- who wrote a NY op-ed and a book, stating that they were part of "the Resistance" within the administration who were doing what they could to stop Trump's worst impulses -- turns out to be ... Miles Taylor, former chief of staff to Kirsjten Nielsen and Chad Wolfe at DHS (though he wasn't CoS when he wrote the piece). 

3) That said, he's a lifelong GOP guy, and as others note, right now the exigencies of the election means he hasn't been pressed about his involvement in the family separation abomination that DHS perpetrated at Trump's command. But he probably should be pressed about it, if not now then after November 3rdf, because he's going to have to explain himself.

He’s now a regular commentator on CNN and he has said a lot of things about how unhappy people were about that policy, and I bet he’ll be on Anderson Cooper’s show or Cuomo’s show or with Jake Tapper saying what he can about it.

eta: just turned on CNN, he’s on Cuomo’s show tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Killjoybear said:

@Maithanet - I don't know that it'll help Trump! I said above that it might hurt because there have been more late voters that are Republicans. I've said before that the polls might be super off and in favor of Biden, especially in states people aren't expecting to go his way. 

And thats my real point here- its not that Trump will win - though I remain pessimistic there. Its that the polls are more likely than any time in our polling history to be comically, hilariously wrong, especially at the state level. And using them as a gauge of anything other than relative movement is not particularly going to be accurate.

Ok, this is more reasonable, but the problem is that you always tie this "the polls could be wrong!" to an argument that Trump is likely to prevail in a crazy election.  In a normal year, someone polling +9 nationally on election night would have like a 98% chance of winning the presidency.  If your point is that this particular election is extremely high variance, then perhaps that number is only 90% or 80%, but it's definitely not 50%, that's just not what variance is.  The fact that national polls continue to find significantly more people want Biden to be president is in fact a big advantage in an election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Killjoybear said:

I'm not the one claiming the models are good and that things are predictable. If you're confident in that it stands to reason that you would show it. But you haven't, which to me implies that for all you're talking shit to me you're pretty doubtful too.

Well, in that case, I've said multiple times that if Biden maintains his current lead it would require a massive systemic polling error which I think is very unlikely.  I've also said multiple times that as long as Biden wins convincingly, Trump will be unsuccessful in his attempts to change the election results via court challenges and GOP officeholders will abandon his efforts.  I've also said multiple times that if the election is close enough - e.g. like Hillary in Trump losing the EC by 100-200k votes - I agree with you it's very likely Trump will be successful and the SC will find a way to hand him the election.  I have said the latter two things multiple times specifically in multiple discussions with you over the past few months.  If that makes me "cowardly" in your book, well then I'm proud of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's only really an evolution on one of the aspects of ritual cannibalism, that by eating a person you take on their power. 'Twas a thing believed by a lot of pre-industrial societies, and undertaken, I believe, especially by the victor after a battle. It's not really surprising, when you think about it, when this conspiracy is mostly believed by people who believe demonic possession is an actual thing. It is also metaphorically represented in 'Highlander' with the whole chop the head off and absorb the power thing, to become "The One", once you've eliminated all your competition.

I am kinda glad, that you didn't become a sex worker. Totally, unrelated and offtopic, but I couldn't resist.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, in that case, I've said multiple times that if Biden maintains his current lead it would require a massive systemic polling error which I think is very unlikely.  I've also said multiple times that as long as Biden wins convincingly, Trump will be unsuccessful in his attempts to change the election results via court challenges and GOP officeholders will abandon his efforts.  I've also said multiple times that if the election is close enough - e.g. like Hillary in Trump losing the EC by 100-200k votes - I agree with you it's very likely Trump will be successful and the SC will find a way to hand him the election.  I have said the latter two things multiple times specifically in multiple discussions with you over the past few months.  If that makes me "cowardly" in your book, well then I'm proud of that.

C'mon now, the pandemia has taken a toll on all of us. Our Calbear can't roam thru the woods of Connecticut (or was it New Hampshire), like he used, to maul unsuspecting Libertarians. So cut him some slack.

In other news. Just one more long endless week before the actual election. Then we have all the court challenges, and horrible things Doofus and his enablers will do during the lame duck sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

That's what I had thought of as soon as I saw your first post. 

Maybe it's a bit like how we hear the British do not have to use postage stamps because they invented the postage stamps or something?

Well, we did invent the postage stamp, but sadly still have to use them. Unless I’ve been wasting my money all these years. Damn you, Royal Mail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...