Official Russian Election Interference Thread

[Newenglanddeac]

"It’s worth thinking about what a patriotic president would have done in Trump’s situation. He would be leading the investigation himself. He would be scouring his own campaign—doing everything in his power to reassure the country that whatever the Russians may or may not have done, his government owed Putin nothing. He would have imposed penalties on Russia for their outrageous acts—rather than protecting Russia from penalties voted by Congress. Above all, he would be leading the demand for changes to election laws and practices, including holding Facebook to account for its negligence."

 

[marquee moon]

Meh

 

[THE DEUCE]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...m-tied-to-mercenaries-in-syria?rnd=1519262578

 

[birdman]

1) People have poor understanding of statistics
2) Nate Silver compiles polling data, he does not conduct his own polls
3) The continued conflation of "you said Hillary would win [the popular vote]" with "Donald won the election suck it pollsters" is so dumb
4) Moonz is either an elite troll or has joined the idiots who don't understand the first three points here

Your first bullet is spot on.

 

[DeacHead]

The first point is so true, that adding more complex statistical concepts like confidence intervals only makes communicating to laypeople that much more challenging.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

the only thing you need to remember is that causation implies correlation

 

[birdman]

The first point is so true, that adding more complex statistical concepts like confidence intervals only makes communicating to laypeople that much more challenging.

I disagree maybe confidence intervals specifically are the wrong tool, but some expression of uncertainty is needed. After the fact we keeping hearing that the models are useless and Silver is an idiot, but if he had shown that while on average Clinton was predicted to win, the uncertainty was large enough that the result was far from certain. Silver predicted that Trump had about a 30% percent chance of winning the day before the election and now dolts like Moonz say he was completely wrong. If you told me, with 2 minutes left in a basketball game that Wake had a 70% win probability, I would probably assume we are going to lose that game.

 

[bym051d]

If you told me, with 2 minutes left in a basketball game that Wake had a 70% win probability, I would probably assume we are going to lose that game.

I'd assume that up to 100%.

 

[birdman]

I disagree maybe confidence intervals specifically are the wrong tool, but some expression of uncertainty is needed. After the fact we keeping hearing that the models are useless and Silver is an idiot, but if he had shown that while on average Clinton was predicted to win, the uncertainty was large enough that the result was far from certain. Silver predicted that Trump had about a 30% percent chance of winning the day before the election and now dolts like Moonz say he was completely wrong. If you told me, with 2 minutes left in a basketball game that Wake had a 70% win probability, I would probably assume we are going to lose that game.

I realize that this contradicts my previous statements that Trump winning was improbable. What I meant previously was, that Trump winning the way he did was improbable. Running the table on WI, MI, PA, FL, and NC was highly improbable, on the order of 0.01%. chance based on the polling data from the week before the election.

 

[PhDeac]

I realize that this contradicts my previous statements that Trump winning was improbable. What I meant previously was, that Trump winning the way he did was improbable. Running the table on WI, MI, PA, FL, and NC was highly improbable, on the order of 0.01%. chance based on the polling data from the week before the election.

Right. And if you looked at polling, there was an ebb and flow where Trump would peak and then drop. The week before the election, he was approaching his peak, but polling stops right before the election, so it didn't pick up the actual peak.

 

[dot com]

If you told me, with 2 minutes left in a basketball game that Wake had a 70% win probability, I would probably assume we are going to lose that game.

It was 96.5% last night with 10s left when I started to feel secure in the win.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/game?gameId=400986276

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[dartsndeacs]

Right. And if you looked at polling, there was an ebb and flow where Trump would peak and then drop. The week before the election, he was approaching his peak, but polling stops right before the election, so it didn't pick up the actual peak.

The Silent majority doesn't pick up the phone when they don't know who it is.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[Newenglanddeac]

 

[Newenglanddeac]

 

[Newenglanddeac]

Nichols bio:

Tom Nichols is a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. He also taught at Dartmouth College, Georgetown University (where he also received his PhD), and other schools and lecture programs.

You can view his CV here.

He is currently a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, and a Fellow of the International History Institute at Boston University.

He has also been a Fellow of the International Security Program and the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

In his Washington days, Tom was a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a consultant to the U.S. government, and a research analyst for private industry. Later, he served as personal staff for foreign and defense affairs to the late U.S. Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania.

 

[Newenglanddeac]

Moonz/Sailor/Lectro - is this your insightful analysis?


The Federalist: The Russia Probe Has Turned The News Into ‘Ancient Aliens’

The news media's rush to judgement on the Russia probe has left them looking like ancient astronaut theorists: entertaining but wrong.

David Marcus
One of my greatest guilty pleasures is my near-addiction to the History Channel show “Ancient Aliens.” It is an absurd, but astonishingly entertaining series that purports to reveal the truth behind extraterrestrial beings in the ancient world.

Hosted by Giorgio Tsoukalos and peppered with weird personalities, from legitimate professors to quack conspiracy kooks, the show is informative and charming, even if its grand conclusions are laughable. Increasingly, our mainstream news media is looking more and more like “Ancient Aliens,” and using similar storytelling techniques, to push narratives that fall apart under any serious scrutiny.

Segments on “Ancient Aliens,” now in its 12th season, have a familiar and predictable format. First, actual experts talk about real mythology, and give examples of curious carvings or hieroglyphs that kind of look like spaceships. They delve into the difficulties of certain ancient structures being built without modern tools, or point to the universality of some symbol across civilizations that had no contact with each other.

All of this is curious and leads to some head-scratching. But by the end of the segment, the nut job conspiracists of the show attempt their fraught explanations, usually ending with something like this: “Could the pyramids have been a global power source for alien spacecraft thousands of years ago? Ancient astronaut experts say, ‘Yes!’”

These days, the news, especially when covering the Trump administration, has been following this format in troubling ways. The coverage of the Russia investigation is a prime example. There are plenty of juicy and accurate facts to fill the opening of a segment of foreign interference in the election. Donald Trump Jr. did meet with a Russian offering opposition research against Hillary Clinton, Michael Flynn did lie about Russian contacts, WikiLeaks did try to damage Clinton by attacking the Democratic National Committee’s computer systems.

But, just as in “Ancient Aliens,” so far these interesting facts don’t tell the story the news media wants to tell. So too often we wind up with anchors or experts saying something like this: “Could the Trump campaign have colluded with Russians to interfere with the election? News media experts say, ‘Yes!’”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/24...t-astronaut-theorists-entertaining-but-wrong/

 

[WakeForestRanger]

 

[Newenglanddeac]

Russians hacked hundreds of Olympic computers and attempted to blame North Korea: report

Russian military spies hacked hundreds of computers at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

According to the report, the Russian agents attempted to place the blame on North Korea, planting false evidence to make it look like the country had done the hacking.

U.S. intelligence officials, who spoke to the Post anonymously, said the "false-flag" operation caused broadcast and internet disruptions, while some attendees found themselves unable to print tickets. The U.S. officials believe the attack was retaliation over the International Olympic Committee's decision to ban Russian officials from attending this year's ceremonies over doping violations.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...c-computers-attempted-to-plant-blame-on-north