|
Deteriorata posted:It's entirely possible. Getting a legislature to pass a bill to fund its creation and maintenance would be the sticking point. Oh right I forgot I lived in the USA where anything vaguely democratic is verboten.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
It's a republic, not a democracy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Rick Snyder has finally agreed to spend some time with the hoi polloi before the election. His campaign announced three town hall meetings all within driving distance of Ann Arbor, his home town. His final word on debating his opponent is "I don't think we need any debates." Today his campaign manager said, “Mark Schauer lacks the intelligence to keep up with him (Snyder) in a format like a town hall.” http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/09/17/forum-snyder-town-hall/15770959/ HUGE PUBES A PLUS fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's entirely possible. Getting a legislature to pass a bill to fund its creation and maintenance would be the sticking point. If Texas can do it (for early voting at least), anyone can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Ahahaha, 538 Nate is getting mad Wang often makes comparisons to 538 and has often use of rather dubious methodology or logic. That his model a better job of predicting the 2012 ND senate race than 538's is relevant, but frankly, the errors he's made are worse from a predictive standpoint and he hasn't really owned up to in a substantive way, (though he has improved the model since 2010), e.g. "In the House, we were off by about 13 seats, much more than the nominal error, +/-2 seats. Therefore there’s a systematic error. One possibility is bad time sampling – at the district level, polls are more spaced in time. However, we did just about as well as the famous guy, Nate Silver. " Which is hilarious wrong, because, as noted in the article, that level of confidence is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Brutal: "The 2010 PEC House forecast says: “The 95% confidence interval for a gain of 50-54 seats to 228-232R.” The GOP gained 63 seats that year. As Nate points out, this means that the actual result was more than 11 standard deviations away. Note that erfc(11) = 1.4409e-54. In other words, if you held an election in America every attosecond since the beginning of the universe, you still would never expect that result to happen." (For context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Brutal: Sam Wang responds: quote:I hear that the Princeton Election Consortium calculation has come under criticism for being statistically overconfident. I think there is confusion here, which requires a little explanation – and an appreciation for what I’ve learned since I started doing this in 2004. Basically, after 2012, any predictive calculation started to build in Election Day uncertainty. By conflating a 2010 snapshot with the 2012/2014 predictive model, Nate Silver has made a factual error. The claws are out.  ETA: He adds via a comment about the specific error Nate ridicules: quote:Sam Wang // Sep 17, 2014 at 12:24 pm Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
MATH FIGHTS are the best, hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
What made Nate Silver go off the handle like that? Dude should just chill out and eat a burrito.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:What made Nate Silver go off the handle like that? Dude should just chill out and eat a burrito. He probably ate a burrito with guac outside the standard deviation of toppings which caused him to math out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Nate Silver's been terrible for at least a year now. the new website is terrible, and it seems like Silver's starting poo poo with Sam Wang and also Vox just to get attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
538's the kind of site you'd expect to be developed by a team of corporate ad men and furries. Look at all those foxes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Nate Silver's been terrible for at least a year now. the new website is terrible, and it seems like Silver's starting poo poo with Sam Wang and also Vox just to get attention. Nate Silver is great at what he does, but I don't think he has any business managing a team of "reporters" or "analysts" or whatever those folks he and ESPN hired are supposed to be. Lots of dumb filler articles, increasing amount of empty controversy, and VERY bad opinions about burritos. Who knows how much of that is ESPN and how much is him, though. The idea that his election forecast models are "bad" now and that they're simply "too complex" has been popping up a lot recently, but I've yet to see any solid substance to back that up. Frankly, I think actually making a determination on that is beyond a layperson's capacity; some experts seem to prefer simple models, but he's certainly not alone in trying to build in more useful information.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Nate Silver's been terrible for at least a year now. the new website is terrible, and it seems like Silver's starting poo poo with Sam Wang and also Vox just to get attention. Nate Silver's been bad since he left his own site for the NYT, losing all but one or two of his old staff in the process. Too much filler since there were no elections going on for awhile and he insisted in modelling things like college sports that he was just absolute poo poo at. That said, Sam Wang is even worse, he can crow about the 2012 results but there were only a few races that really went right down to the wire without much polling, which gave him a little advantage which won't reoccur this year (the equivalents to that SD race he got right are receiving regular polling this time around.) Anyone that swears by him is either a partisan fool or an unlucky student who was given the link by him during one of his classes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Does 538 do gubernatorial forecasts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Rick Snyder has finally agreed to spend some time with the hoi polloi before the election. His campaign announced three town hall meetings all within driving distance of Ann Arbor, his home town. His final word on debating his opponent is "I don't think we need any debates." Was Perry the one that started this trend, or have sitting Governors been doing this for a while? I'd imagine they were scared the media would flip out and label them a coward, but no such thing happened to Perry and he won easily. The Texas GOP is also notorious for scheduling debates on Fridays when there's football happening, I guess they just stepped up their game. Abbott is refusing to debate Davis, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Was Perry the one that started this trend, or have sitting Governors been doing this for a while? I'd imagine they were scared the media would flip out and label them a coward, but no such thing happened to Perry and he won easily. Kasich in Ohio also said recently no debates are happening. Snyder instead is going to have these town hall meetings where he stands in front of a vetted, pre-selected audience and answers softball questions. This is the first time Snyder has done anything remotely resembling campaigning so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Pretty sure you can only get away without debating if you have an insurmountable lead in the polls. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Snyder doesn't have that, does he? E: I don't grammar good, apparently. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Pretty sure you can only get away without debating if you have an insurmountable lead in the polls. Unless I'm very much mistake, Snyder doesn't have that, does he? the race is literally neck and neck, except for Dick DeVos drinking buddy Steven Mitchell, whose polls are utter poo poo. All other polls have Schauer and Snyder within the margin of error.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Pretty sure you can only get away without debating if you have an insurmountable lead in the polls. Unless I'm very much mistake, Snyder doesn't have that, does he? Snyder may very well have internal polling that says refusing to debate is the right way to go. And with how polarized and apathetic people are about government these days, it wouldn't surprise me if (for example) refusing to debate loses him few of his supporters, while protecting him from making a gaffe that drives the opposition to the polls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:For a vote-anywhere system, you'd probably need some kind of centralized computer system to keep track of the voter rolls. This introduces a large number of ways that the entire election system can go down or be unavailable Yeah, it's one thing if a Web 2.0 app has some downtime and nobody can comment on pictures of someone else's dinner, it's another thing if polls have downtime. It's a screaming-yelling-makes-the-local-papers-possible-lawsuit when you have an issue at a few precincts for a bit. It's a national scandal if half the state is down for a couple hours during an election. Lutha Mahtin posted:there's also the issue of training every (old-rear end, technophobe) election judge on how to use the system. Right. Just to expound on this a bit, the system has to be unlocked, activated, and assembled by 2-3 guys who needs their grandkids' help every Daylight Savings Time, and then those same guys have to be able to help your grandma who refuses to use a computer instead of a typewriter with understanding how to cast her ballot. Plus these election judges are working 12+ hour days and all the rush is at the end. Gyges posted:However there's no reason that election day should work any different than early voting, just with more locations to choose from. "more locations" adds an order of magnitude more complexity. When you're running early voting in a registrar's office, you've got well-trained and paid staff using reliable equipment in a known facility with reliable utilities and security. On E-Day, you've got 60+ precincts in locations ranging from church basements to high-school gyms, with volunteer staff who have had like 4 hours of training, and no guarantees about utilities (does the church basement get more than 2 bars, how many outlets are there in the high school gym). Plus you've got to lug all the equipment around and re-connect it on-site. A lot of states have polls opening at like 6am or so, and election judges are already working a 12+ hour day, so you can't take an hour or two getting set up in the morning. That's entirely different from early voting. FMguru posted:Ahahaha, 538 Nate is getting mad I mean, they sort of have to fight about esoteric things like confidence intervals because generally the broad stuff is usually pretty obvious. Like if you didn't have your head squarely up your rear end and looked at battleground polls at all in 2012, it was pretty clear in the fall that Obama was very likely to win (excepting that one week-long blip after the RNC when he choked in the first debate). Similarly, basically everyone looking at 2010 saw that Republicans were going to have a really good year, etc. By the time most of these models hit a high enough certainty level to have someone like Silver talking in terms of "very likely", there are going to be enough signs outside the model that other folks are at least leaning the same way. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Like if you didn't have your head squarely up your rear end and looked at battleground polls at all in 2012, it was pretty clear in the fall that Obama was very likely to win (excepting that one week-long blip after the RNC when he choked in the first debate). I've got to pull this point out of your post because it is more than a little bit revisionist. The national narrative was full of disinformation at all levels leading up to 2012's election- Nate Silver predicting 2008 with relative accuracy was his only real claim to fame, and his voice was one in a seas of claims of 'unskewed polls' and 'momentum'. Now we can all claim "In Nate I trusted ", but then it was more like it is now- in two weeks he went from a 65% chance of a Republican takeover to a <55% chance, which is a big god damned deal. He's also starting petty fights about confidence intervals, and his 538 site hasn't been the bastion of assured statistics we were hoping it would be. None of that inspires confidence, but in 2015 you know we'll be reading posts "if you didn't have your head squarely up your rear end", etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
"Assured statistics" is an oxymoron. That's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Quinnipiac is a poo poo pollster, right? That's the only reason I can think of that their polls show Republican candidates in the lead in Colorado. What the gently caress is wrong with this country? Things start to turn around with Democratic control of the Senate and Presidency, even a little bit, after a decade of Republican malfeasance, and now we're considering putting the fuckheads back in power? Why isn't the House in play? And then I remember gerrymandering and how poo poo is hosed beyond repair there and that I can't really ever see Democratic control there again barring some disastrous accelerationist event brought on by Republican engineered policy. gently caress, I need a drink and it isnt even noon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I've got to pull this point out of your post because it is more than a little bit revisionist. The national narrative was full of disinformation at all levels leading up to 2012's election- Nate Silver predicting 2008 with relative accuracy was his only real claim to fame, and his voice was one in a seas of claims of 'unskewed polls' and 'momentum'. I think you misunderstand me or I wasn't clear. My point is not "In Nate I trusted" but rather that pretty much any analysis method that involved battleground polls saw more or less the same thing - consistent but narrow Obama leads in states like Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, etc. I myself correctly predicted every 2012 state just by eyeballing the RealClearPolitics polling averages for the battleground states in October. The divide wasn't on exactly which special sauce folks were using in their models (exception: Un-Skew folks), the divide was "folks who looked at all the battleground polls" and "folks who glanced at one or two polls, listened to a few insiders' spin, and then stuck their finger in the area before saying 'too close to call'". Just approaching things rationally and looking primarily at polling data would get you "likely Obama victory" in the Fall of 2012. On a broader scale, I suspect elections fall into two broad buckets: A) An election like 2012 or 2010 where the broad strokes are pretty easy to see in polling data B) An election like 2000 or 2004 where the polling in battleground states is much more mixed. In the case of an (A) election, most models are going to converge on the correct answer, and more accurate models would make you look better in confidence intervals or EV totals but everyone's still predicting the same winner. In a (B) election, the right special sauce might tell you that Ohio's more likely to break redder than October polls suggest, but it's not going to get you past 65% certainty in your prediction - you'd probably still be saying "too close to call" until forced off the fence the night before E-Day and even then you'd have a wishy-washy caveat filled statement. Even if we accept Nate's premise that Wang's claiming way too much certainty, it's still noteworthy that he's only hitting 70% certain of a Democratic Senate right as every other model is starting to move from Lean R to Toss-up or Lean D - it's not like the models are moving in different directions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Quinnipiac is a poo poo pollster, right? Hickenlooper was up by 2 points in a Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll last week, 45-43, among likely voters. A NBC/Marist Poll conducted Sept. 2-4, showed Hickenlooper up 4 points, 43-39. That reversing to be 50-40 in favor of Beauprez instead would be surprising to me. Also note that Quinnipiac overestimated Romney in 2012, so maybe house effect, maybe outlier, maybe strange likely voter model. edit: I don't see the Senate section of their polling out yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
http://electoral-vote.com/ Don't forget Andrew S. Tannenbaum's site. Before Nate showed up, he was rather handy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Here's the catchy ad campaign by Mitch McConnell's other opponent in November. Mr. Ransdell is a white supremacist who says: quote:"Online we have had a lot of positive feedback," he said. "Like I said we're going to find out what kind of feedback we get once we go out and take it to the people here in the state of Kentucky." Is this guy gonna create problems for McConnell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Is this guy gonna create problems for McConnell? He's running as a write-in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:He's running as a write-in. I know but, it'd be so hilarious if he siphoned off just enough votes to give it to Grimes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
There is a good amount of overlap there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Why isn't the House in play? I think it's that coupled with mid-term voter demographics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:"more locations" adds an order of magnitude more complexity. When you're running early voting in a registrar's office, you've got well-trained and paid staff using reliable equipment in a known facility with reliable utilities and security. On E-Day, you've got 60+ precincts in locations ranging from church basements to high-school gyms, with volunteer staff who have had like 4 hours of training, and no guarantees about utilities (does the church basement get more than 2 bars, how many outlets are there in the high school gym). Plus you've got to lug all the equipment around and re-connect it on-site. A lot of states have polls opening at like 6am or so, and election judges are already working a 12+ hour day, so you can't take an hour or two getting set up in the morning. That's entirely different from early voting. While there are far more locations for regular voting than early voting, the staffing for each is exactly the same here. Almost all volunteers with perhaps one person actually being paid. All the set up and technology issues are largely the same for early voting as well due to having several locations spread throughout the county. Given that we have two weeks of early voting that tend to be around 2 hours or so less each day than on election day, the hours aren't really an issue either. Even the connectivity issue isn't really a limiting factor since the same machines are used for early voting as for regular voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kansas-supreme-court-senate-race-decision The Kansas Supreme Court ordered the Democratic candidate who withdrew from the election off the ballot, which gives the independent a much better chance of knocking off Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Earlier Kobach said there's another law that required the party to fill vanacies and he'll just tell them to do that if the court ruled against him. So he might not let it go?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Ganon posted:Earlier Kobach said there's another law that required the party to fill vanacies and he'll just tell them to do that if the court ruled against him. So he might not let it go? And if the Democrats refuse, what is he going to do? He can sue them, but until a court orders the party to produce a nominee by a specific date, they're not going to do anything. The clock is on their side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:And if the Democrats refuse, what is he going to do? He can sue them, but until a court orders the party to produce a nominee by a specific date, they're not going to do anything. The clock is on their side. Or, the party could convene a committee at its next scheduled general meeting to appoint an individual for the ballot; perhaps, even include a second option on the current ballot, a primary election on the ballot to be held for the Democratic nominee. Not unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Ganon posted:Earlier Kobach said there's another law that required the party to fill vanacies and he'll just tell them to do that if the court ruled against him. So he might not let it go? The Court explicitly refused rule on if the Democratic Party was required to do so (they were not a party to the lawsuit, so any decision about if they were required to name a replacement would be an advisory opinion). quote:With this determination, we need not consider the parties' numerous other arguments. Nor do we need to act on Kobach's allegation that a ruling for Taylor would require the Kansas Democratic Party State Committee to name his replacement nominee per K.S.A. 25-3905. The Kansas Democratic Party is not a party to this original action, and this court does not issue advisory opinions. Gannon v. State, Kobach can huff and puff all he wants, but there's no possibility he gets an order compelling them to name a replacement in time for the ballots to be printed and there is a court order specifically barring him from including Taylor. He could try to put in some placeholder like "Democratic Party Candidate" or the like, but that seems sketchy to me and he probably has no legal authority to do that. However if he did, well, ballots must be mailed by Saturday and printed tomorrow so if he does I doubt he can be stopped. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:What the gently caress is wrong with this country? Things start to turn around with Democratic control of the Senate and Presidency, even a little bit, after a decade of Republican malfeasance, and now we're considering putting the fuckheads back in power? Because people vote based on a huge number of different factors? I'd be surprised if anyone here completely agreed with the entire Democratic platform. quote:Why isn't the House in play? Nope. A wave election is all that's needed to make the 2010 gerrymander backfire hilariously, and it'll lose its effectiveness anyway as demographics keep shifting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:There is a good amount of overlap there. I know! He understands rhymes!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:24
|
|
