• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

It's weird that the left began dabbling with populism after Obama. I mean, he wasn't super effective, but he wasn't corrupt. It makes a little more sense after this administration.
 
I did read it... Doesn't change it being BS.

What's "really something" is you asked for numbers, were given them and, as usual, you neglect anything that proves you wrong.

sshhhhh. Strick is never wrong....

birdman and Ph, who know more about statistics than me, both confirmed that my interpretation of the data was correct. Silver's spin is dubious. Hence, my point that Silver's claim is as dubious as the claim that Sanders defectors/no shows caused Clinton to lose. Dubious claims are dubious. Jesus Christ.

Have you heard of the Khan Academy? They have free videos that explain basic descriptive statistics. I would recommend checking them out.
 
It's weird that the left began dabbling with populism after Obama. I mean, he wasn't super effective, but he wasn't corrupt. It makes a little more sense after this administration.
Hmm...I think you're missing the mark by looking for personal corruption, from Obama, as a catalyst. His decisions certainly shaped the American economic recovery from the 2008 financial crisis in ways that heavily favored the investment industry. That's not corruption, but its certainly an accumulation of systemic inequality, injustice, and unfairness.
 
Go fuck yourself. You condescending asshole...

If you will learn an ounce about statistics before arguing inane points, then I'll gladly take your advice (though it's a bit vulgar, wouldn't you say?).

Win-Win.

See, compromise is possible in the Tunnels, after all, and maybe we can avoid page long RJ vs stats arguments on the NBA thread before the season tips off in October!
 
The ONLY compromise that has EVER been available to the board is to genuflect to your omniscience.

You're right. It's on me for having the audacity to having a differing opinion Mr. Trump, Jr. or are you PH, Jr?
 
The ONLY compromise that has EVER been available to the board is to genuflect to your omniscience.

You're right. It's on me for having the audacity to having a differing opinion Mr. Trump, Jr. or are you PH, Jr?

IMO, your posting style reads closer to DJTj than PHDj

Was that the question?
 
Last edited:
The question was about YOU.

Just like Trump, you can't take responsibility. Just like PH, you are never wrong. Like both of them, you "know" more than everyone else about every subject.

Your MO has never changed.
 
I am starting to think that Warren will win the nomination. as candidates drop out it is looking like the votes will consolidate towards her. The only thing that might stop her is Bernie, and he is to old and bitter to drop out of the race. So ironically he might end up assisting the moderate Biden get the nomination.

Yep. I agree. If it comes down to those three, the calls for him to step down will be loud.

It's weird that the left began dabbling with populism after Obama. I mean, he wasn't super effective, but he wasn't corrupt. It makes a little more sense after this administration.

Not after. During. Occupy started about 10 years ago.
 
It’s pretty revisionist history to say that 538’s model was giving Democrats false confidence and comfort. It was pretty much the exact opposite at the time. There were numerous pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and on internet sites that were giving takes like “slam dunk”, “99% for Clinton”, “no chance for Trump”, etc. You can be anti-Nate Silver and anti-poll analysis, but 538 was pretty much the only site that was pushing back on that consensus and they were getting lots of shit for it.

I think maybe those people at CNN and MSNBC are the generation of poll whisperers spawned by silver that Strick is talking about above. They were dead wrong, largely because their models didn’t account for the spatial dynamics of the electoral college effectively. Whether or not Silver spawned those modelers it uncertain, but they definitely gave the DNC and Clinton too much confidence.
 
The DNC had too much convince Clinton well before Nate Silver. They’ve been consistently wrong about politics for the last 20 years.
 
The question was about YOU.

Just like Trump, you can't take responsibility. Just like PH, you are never wrong. Like both of them, you "know" more than everyone else about every subject.

Your MO has never changed.

BUT WHO AM I
 
Yep. I agree. If it comes down to those three, the calls for him to step down will be loud.



Not after. During. Occupy started about 10 years ago.

The left’s anti globalization movement started in the late 90s. There were protests at the WTO meetings and UN. I remember being at my parent’s yacht club in ‘99 trying to explain to their rich wall street friends over dinner what the gripes were all about.
 
I think maybe those people at CNN and MSNBC are the generation of poll whisperers spawned by silver that Strick is talking about above. They were dead wrong, largely because their models didn’t account for the spatial dynamics of the electoral college effectively. Whether or not Silver spawned those modelers it uncertain, but they definitely gave the DNC and Clinton too much confidence.

Yeah, that's who I was talking about above.
 
I know, birdman, but my claim is that Silver's popular statistics treatment of election forecasting allowed Dems to get comfy and overconfident (because, as you point out, prognosticators didn't appear to understand statistics). Whether Silver is at fault for his data's consumption doesn't really matter much to my point. Claiming that Silver's analysis caused Clinton to lose is as dubious a claim as "Sanders supporters swung the election!111."

How do you feel about this claim?



This was my read on the data. Silver is a better statistician than media spinner.

Strick and bird, I agree with you that incorrect poll analysis and the like caused many at the DNC and in the Clinton campaign to be overconfident and lazy, but the above post and a post before saying Silver was partially responsible for Trump is where I disagree (and if it’s largely semantics, well I specialize in that). Silver’s popularity post-2012 undoubtedly spawned major media outlets’ own poll analysis models, but where 538 is different is Silver’s narcissism in only caring about being right. CNN, MSNBC and others looked at Trump and couldn’t fathom the possibility of Trump winning which likely led to their polling models overvaluing Clinton polling. They weren’t terribly off of the poll results, but the confidence levels were too high for the data. I don’t think you can blame Silver and 538 though for other media outlets sucking at their job.

Again, probably just semantics, but that’s what I was getting at.
 
Strick and bird, I agree with you that incorrect poll analysis and the like caused many at the DNC and in the Clinton campaign to be overconfident and lazy, but the above post and a post before saying Silver was partially responsible for Trump is where I disagree (and if it’s largely semantics, well I specialize in that). Silver’s popularity post-2012 undoubtedly spawned major media outlets’ own poll analysis models, but where 538 is different is Silver’s narcissism in only caring about being right. CNN, MSNBC and others looked at Trump and couldn’t fathom the possibility of Trump winning which likely led to their polling models overvaluing Clinton polling. They weren’t terribly off of the poll results, but the confidence levels were too high for the data. I don’t think you can blame Silver and 538 though for other media outlets sucking at their job.

Again, probably just semantics, but that’s what I was getting at.

I agree with all of this. I started this by defending Silver and asserting that it’s not his fault people don’t understand predictive models.
 
Back
Top