d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Trump-kim Summit
Prev1323334353650Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 9650Replies: 493Track Topic
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
#331
Jun 13 2018 01:44pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 13 Jun 2018 14:22)
i think it's somewhere between, "Comey dropped the bomb that the investigation was reopening in light of Wiener emails" (which even'd the odds a bit at a critical time, then those odds proved wrong but inside of the margin for error) and "there's a secret trump vote" (which conventional polling and data collection failed to account for)

so in reality someone could be an evil genius that understood what all models didn't, but that's likely a gut feeling at best and nothing that people could justify with data pre-election, just hindsight now. I had a SUPER liberal buddy that was convinced Trump would win, and easily, months before the Comey letter. his reasoning was essentially correct, angry blobs of white populations in key states with Trump taking all of the small electorate states plus Texas. he even predicted Michigan and Penn openly. I called him a fool.


The complicated thing is that his prediction probably was foolish. I can't say for certain because I am not familiar with his reasoning. But a prediction based in unreliable or unempirical reasoning that just so happens to be correct is probably not a good prediction.
Member
Posts: 92,908
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#332
Jun 13 2018 01:48pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ Jun 13 2018 01:44pm)
The complicated thing is that his prediction probably was foolish. I can't say for certain because I am not familiar with his reasoning. But a prediction based in unreliable or unempirical reasoning that just so happens to be correct is probably not a good prediction.


well he stated that economically depressed people in places like MI and PA were going to rally behind trump in the voting booth but weren't publicly responding to the poll in the same proportions. I think that's just about as someone could do pre-election. it's impossible to back it with empirical data when the data models can't account for respondent dishonesty, also you'd have to poll VERY key areas such as GM country in Michigan. Nationwide polls were the MSM's big mistake.

he dropped a "racism" cherry on top, but he's a liberal so i mean that's a given.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 13 2018 01:49pm
Member
Posts: 54,061
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#333
Jun 13 2018 01:51pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 13 Jun 2018 21:22)
i think it's somewhere between, "Comey dropped the bomb that the investigation was reopening in light of Wiener emails" (which even'd the odds a bit at a critical time, then those odds proved wrong but inside of the margin for error) and "there's a secret trump vote" (which conventional polling and data collection failed to account for)

so in reality someone could be an evil genius that understood what all models didn't, but that's likely a gut feeling at best and nothing that people could justify with data pre-election, just hindsight now. I had a SUPER liberal buddy that was convinced Trump would win, and easily, months before the Comey letter. his reasoning was essentially correct, angry blobs of white populations in key states with Trump taking all of the small electorate states plus Texas. he even predicted Michigan and Penn openly. I called him a fool.


such predictions were reasoned and made by plenty of people, for example by michael moore in the summer of 2016:
https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

in the end, both methodologically sound sites like fivethirtyeight and the internal models from the trump campaign gave him a chance of winning of about 30% on election day. I tend to believe that this was a realistic assessment.
with 30:70 odds, one can of course argue like ThatAlex that it was the reasonable prediction to bet on hillary. but those realistic odds were narrow enough to listen to one's gut feeling and bet on trump without looking like a complete fool either.

so I'd say that whoever predicted trump to win based on actual arguments, like for example enthusiasm and crowd size at rallies, was less foolish and less wrong than those pundits who gave hillary a 98.2% chance of winning.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 13 2018 01:52pm
Member
Posts: 92,908
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#334
Jun 13 2018 01:54pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 13 2018 01:51pm)
such predictions were reasoned and made by plenty of people, for example by michael moore in the summer of 2016:
https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

in the end, both methodologically sound sites like fivethirtyeight and the internal models from the trump campaign gave him a chance of winning of about 30% on election day. I tend to believe that this was a realistic assessment.
with 30:70 odds, one can of course argue like ThatAlex that it was the reasonable prediction to bet on hillary. but those realistic odds were narrow enough to listen to one's gut feeling and bet on trump without looking like a complete fool either.

so I'd say that whoever predicted trump to win based on actual arguments was less fooling and less wrong than those pundits who gave hillary a 98.2% chance of winning or something of this magnitude.


while i agree generally with this post, the 98% horse hockey was pre comey-letter. or imo carry over from news sources that didnt sense the shift. iirc HRC's internals even showed they could lose within the margin of error.

as to Moore, that's not surprising given the role that his home region played in the victory and how incredibly in step he is with that area. having done multiple documentaries on it, and also dabbling in coal country for that documentary.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 13 2018 01:55pm
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
#335
Jun 13 2018 02:16pm
Quote (thesnipa @ 13 Jun 2018 14:48)
well he stated that economically depressed people in places like MI and PA were going to rally behind trump in the voting booth but weren't publicly responding to the poll in the same proportions. I think that's just about as someone could do pre-election. it's impossible to back it with empirical data when the data models can't account for respondent dishonesty, also you'd have to poll VERY key areas such as GM country in Michigan. Nationwide polls were the MSM's big mistake.

he dropped a "racism" cherry on top, but he's a liberal so i mean that's a given.


If he was talking about economic issues in Rust Belt states as being a potentially big factor in the election, then that was probably a really good prediction. Only with hindsight bias could most people identify that topic as one that ended up being important as it was.

Quote (thesnipa @ 13 Jun 2018 14:48)
it's impossible to back it with empirical data when the data models can't account for respondent dishonesty, also you'd have to poll VERY key areas such as GM country in Michigan.


To my knowledge, the polling in key areas such as GM country in Michigan were not readily available to the public. That's one part of my point, we could only work with the information we had available to us at the time, which in this case was state-wide polling in the state of Michigan.

Quote (thesnipa @ 13 Jun 2018 14:48)
Nationwide polls were the MSM's big mistake.


Nationwide polling margins are associated with electoral college votes.
Member
Posts: 54,061
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#336
Jun 13 2018 02:37pm
Quote (ThatAlex @ 13 Jun 2018 22:16)

Nationwide polling margins are associated with electoral college votes.


yes, but not perfectly. that the rust belt and the midwest were drifting towards trump and had favorable demographic trends for him, while he was going to get really bad margins in california and texas, was obvious to any competent observer. that the national popular vote would be underestimating his chances in the electoral college was obvious.

fivethirtyeight, to name just one example, gave trump a 30% chance of winning the electoral college, but also showed a chance of around 9-10% of trump losing the popular vote. so essentially, their models said that about one third of all the winning scenarios their models saw for trump would contain a popular vote electoral college split.
Member
Posts: 16,992
Joined: Sep 18 2010
Gold: 30,244.60
#337
Jun 13 2018 03:32pm
Member
Posts: 92,908
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
#338
Jun 13 2018 04:34pm
and as i predicted before the show Ben Shapiro vindicates icemage's skepticism on that tweet that started the REEEEEE from cultists in this thread.

Member
Posts: 49,872
Joined: Dec 23 2006
Gold: 0.00
#339
Jun 13 2018 05:00pm
The new always trys so spin shit against trump it's fucking comical
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
#340
Jun 13 2018 05:03pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 13 2018 11:29am)
Re read the tweet. Trump talks about things going well, essentially implicitly bragging that he is making this happen, etc. Same ol'Trump that brags about everything.

You on the other hand are thinking about this in some extra dimensions that honestly make no sense. Don't be obtuse, use a little common sense.


We could go back and forth on this all day. I'll just leave you with advice from one of my mentors, it seems relevant to this discussion:



Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1323334353650Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact