Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

vegietarian18 September 15th, 2016 04:46 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I'll be honest and say that I think the media in general is overstating the public dislike of Trump and making it seem like there is less parity than there is. Trump reminds me a lot of Brexit. Trump was always viewed as an impossibility supported by racists, same for Brexit. I think day of, Brexit was seen as like a 20% shot to happen by most betting markets. But it happened, and by a sizable margin. It was the same with Trump's primary run, where Trump was not really considered a likely winner from the general media until it was too late. Even Fox News was kind of anti-Trump during the primaries; he's not really a traditional conservative. I guess my point in general is that the media is not very in touch with the kind of people who vote Trump. These aren't the people who voted Romney or McCain or even Bush.

One thing that is super important about the first-past-the-post voting system that dok was talking about is that it does effectively measure levels of enthusiasm. People can support a candidate, but not every single one of them goes out to vote on election day. But if you are more enthused about a candidate, you are far more likely to get out and vote. Trump supporters are much more fervent than Clinton supporters. Most of the people who openly support Trump will vote for him, some of the people who express dissatisfaction with both candidates but prefer Clinton will not.

I think, because of that, Trump's chances of winning are much higher than most sites say. I am not sure around what percentage, but I'd estimate at least 66%.

You were more talking about parity in the quality of candidates, but I think the media isn't being that seriously by Trump supporters anyways. A lot of Trump's campaign plays around American mistrust of the media. I guess there is an argument that the media is taking him too seriously which causes people to support him, but I'd argue the inverse of the media not taking him seriously enough is what got him where he is.

Dysole September 15th, 2016 04:54 PM

Support Beams
 
66% feels really high vegie. Plenty of people missed the Trump train in the primaries and 538 even regrets not building a model to categorize Trump's support earlier (although their model for who won each individual primary was ridiculously correct missing only 2 of the Democrat primaries and zero of the Republican primaries). As it sits right now their model for the general has Trump nowhere near that number. Trump support might be understated but I am going to trust the rigorous model put forth by 538 until new evidence comes to light.

~Dysole, who is at least a little terrified for her future if vegie is correct

Ranior September 15th, 2016 05:01 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2109905)
I'll be honest and say that I think the media in general is overstating the public dislike of Trump and making it seem like there is less parity than there is. Trump reminds me a lot of Brexit. Trump was always viewed as an impossibility supported by racists, same for Brexit. I think day of, Brexit was seen as like a 20% shot to happen by most betting markets. But it happened, and by a sizable margin. It was the same with Trump's primary run, where Trump was not really considered a likely winner from the general media until it was too late. Even Fox News was kind of anti-Trump during the primaries; he's not really a traditional conservative. I guess my point in general is that the media is not very in touch with the kind of people who vote Trump. These aren't the people who voted Romney or McCain or even Bush.

Please do not quote betting market forecasts as accurate probability predictions for what would actually happen, and then note that since those markets were wrong make the conclusion that other's efforts at forecasting will also be wrong. That line of thinking has so many flaws it's tough to even swallow.

The key point we should remember about any betting market is that the bookies are trying to make money. In the case of the Brexit betting markets, people were putting money on remain more than exit, and so the bookies have to follow the money and tilt the odds so that they get more exit bets to help cover themselves. In this manner, betting markets, while often being based in good probabilistic models, will often emerge with results that don't line up to reality due to what people themselves are choosing to bet.

Quote:


One thing that is super important about the first-past-the-post voting system that dok was talking about is that it does effectively measure levels of enthusiasm. People can support a candidate, but not every single one of them goes out to vote on election day. But if you are more enthused about a candidate, you are far more likely to get out and vote. Trump supporters are much more fervent than Clinton supporters. Most of the people who openly support Trump will vote for him, some of the people who express dissatisfaction with both candidates but prefer Clinton will not.

I think, because of that, Trump's chances of winning are much higher than most sites say. I am not sure around what percentage, but I'd estimate at least 66%.
Good job manufacturing numbers that are based on your gut to arrive at a result you prefer. Ignore the educated experts that analyze 100's of polls and past data, create complicated models trying to account for every factor, and just say they're all overlooking something obvious and pull out a number you personally feel is more accurate.

For the record, that's really not how numbers work.

As Dysole notes, your best bet is probably fivethirtyeight's forceasts if you want a rigorous model made by statistical modeling experts. My guess though is you don't put much stock in expertise or media and will prefer your gut number over the one that is backed up by data, knowledge, and experience.

Rich10 September 15th, 2016 05:04 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
Reality is not binary. The e-mail scandal (which certainly contains wrongdoing, but nothing major or malicious) is a good example of this. Hillary has disclosed an enormous amount of personal information, some of it voluntarily, some of it after having it dragged out of her. She resisted revealing some stuff she insisted is entirely personal in nature. Is that opening the doors, is that reasonable? Is that a bunker mentality? It's not really one or the other. It's a person living under a microscope and trying to navigate it in her way, neither perfect nor deplorable.

Setting up a home email server as opposed to using the government servers is in my humble opinion, a bunker mentality where you control the information. I could be fired if I did this. How about you? If in your job, you bypassed corporate security and used personal emails, without all of the requisite security, what would the reaction of the company that you work for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
You realize it's impossible to prove a negative, right? The above statement is literally the best you could hope of any presidential candidate, because literally the only alternative is that they have been proven to break the law. (You know, like Donald Trump has.)

Yes, I admit that it is impossible to prove a negative. Do you admit that the appearance of taking so much money (whether to their foundation or to speaking fees for Bill) is unwise for a government official? Even if the Clintons weren't influenced by the $150 million +, doesn't this create the appearance of a conflict?

And again, I'm not defending Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
Buying influence happens all the time in politics - usually by contributing to a politician's campaign, other times by purchasing the services of high-priced lobbyists with access. By contrast, contributing money to a charity associated with someone seems like both an extremely ineffective and almost comically benign way to attempt to purchase influence.

This "comically benign" method seems to have been successful. It can be argued, without the need for a right wing conspiracy, that paying Bill millions of dollars directly affects HRC more than contributing to their campaign or their charity.

If someone paid your wife millions of dollars to give speeches, would you be influenced in any way? I would. Maybe Hillary just has a higher moral compass than I. lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

There is a bias towards creating the appearance of parity. There is a bias towards not appearing to take sides. When one candidate is easily the least qualified and most scandal-ridden candidate of my lifetime, attempting to portray the problems each candidate has in the same light amounts to a massive bias. And yes, that's what we're seeing. "He said, she said" reporting only works when there's roughly an equal amount of rightness and wrongness on both sides. And there isn't; not even close.

Donald Trump's "charitable foundation" gave a $25k contribution to the PAC of the Florida attorney general while she was considering whether to press charges against Trump over Trump university. The foundation later claimed this was a clerical error and they had intended to give the money to a charity in Utah with a similar name (one they have never given money to before or since). Riiiiiight.

Go ahead, try to find one story in HRC's history that suggests anything even close to the same level of quid pro quo as that story. And yet, that story has gotten extremely little coverage, because it's lost in the whirlwind of insanity that is the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the e-mail scandal just keeps coming around and around, largely because there's just not a ton of other questionable stuff to talk about.

A combination of journalistic laziness and journalistic cowardice has led to a false balance that is actually, yes, quite biased.

If you don't think that there is a liberal bias to the media (excluding Fox), we will just have to agree to disagree.

vegietarian18 September 15th, 2016 05:09 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I was referring most specifically to 538 when I said that I thought places were underestimating his chances. They have him at just under a 40% chance to win. I don't doubt that is an accurate representation of the data they aggregate, but I don't think the data is necessarily being collected correctly by pollsters, given both Brexit and Trump's primary win. It's a possibility that I'm just trying to see a narrative from the numbers, and both were really just somewhat longshots that happened. I won't deny that. I just think Trump's chances of winning are higher than 40%.

dok September 15th, 2016 05:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2109905)
I'll be honest and say that I think the media in general is overstating the public dislike of Trump and making it seem like there is less parity than there is. Trump reminds me a lot of Brexit. Trump was always viewed as an impossibility supported by racists, same for Brexit. I think day of, Brexit was seen as like a 20% shot to happen by most betting markets. But it happened, and by a sizable margin. It was the same with Trump's primary run, where Trump was not really considered a likely winner from the general media until it was too late.

The lesson of both Trump's primary win and Brexit is that you should believe the polls even when they tell you things that seem unlikely. Both of those results seemed very reasonable if you just read the polls. Trump was the leader in the primary polls essentially throughout the campaign (all the way back to the summer of 2015). Where 538, et al, failed in the primaries was that (as Nate Silver has explicitly admitted) they "acted like pundits" and trusted their guts instead of just looking at what the voters were saying.

Ironically, you seem to be taking those wins as a sign that we can ignore the polls telling us that Trump is likely (although certainly not guaranteed) to lose in the fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2109905)
Even Fox News was kind of anti-Trump during the primaries; he's not really a traditional conservative. I guess my point in general is that the media is not very in touch with the kind of people who vote Trump. These aren't the people who voted Romney or McCain or even Bush.

This is actually demonstrably false - or at least, as false as we can tell via exit polls and other polling data. Trump did succeed in bringing lots of new people into the primary electorate, however, the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are people who already supported Republicans in fall campaigns in the past.

vegietarian18 September 15th, 2016 05:18 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I was referring specifically to the increase of nationalism and how those voters change things, but maybe I am putting to much weight into the alt-right after the increased attention it's got from the media. I'm not really wanting to argue this all that much, it's just a feeling that I have that Clinton voters are not enthusiastic as Obama voters were. Maybe it's just a college campus thing. There was just an article about how college age voters like Obama far more than Clinton

Ranior September 15th, 2016 05:29 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2109918)
I was referring most specifically to 538 when I said that I thought places were underestimating his chances. They have him at just under a 40% chance to win. I don't doubt that is an accurate representation of the data they aggregate, but I don't think the data is necessarily being collected correctly by pollsters, given both Brexit and Trump's primary win. It's a possibility that I'm just trying to see a narrative from the numbers, and both were really just somewhat longshots that happened. I won't deny that. I just think Trump's chances of winning are higher than 40%.

You bring up data points, most of which the pollsters had pretty much correct (for almost all primary elections and the brexit vote, pollsters were pretty much within their 3-4 percentage points magin of error). You then conclude that the pollsters are probably wrong for the current election polling based on this errnorous statement?

Even if we accept the odds were 20% "longshots" for both events, that's a 1 in 25 chance that both would occur. You certainly don't have enough data points to suggest that the polling is significantly skewed, enough to basically flip Clinton's 3ish percentage point lead in the polls to favor Trump by about 4ish percentage points (which is what your 66% probability of him winning would roughly require).

Basically you're claiming that all the professional pollsters are missing these factors, and that the polls are off by about 7 percentage points. I would suggest to you that it is more likely you are just hunting for a narrative and pulling numbers that feel better to you, not that your estimates are more indicative of the real situation as compared to the experts.

Finally, as to your last point, even if you are correct that less people are excited by Clinton, that doesn't necessarily translate into her being more likely to lose. There are many other factors. I fully admit I am less excited to go vote Clinton than I was to vote Obama, but it isn't making me any less probable to actually go cast that vote. While I am a single person and this is just anecdotal, I just want to point out that you probably shouldn't confuse a lack of perceived enthusiasm as a reason why Clinton would lose and Trump would win.

dok September 15th, 2016 05:38 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Setting up a home email server as opposed to using the government servers is in my humble opinion, a bunker mentality where you control the information. I could be fired if I did this. How about you? If in your job, you bypassed corporate security and used personal emails, without all of the requisite security, what would the reaction of the company that you work for?

If I sent a ton of work e-mails using my gmail account? Eh, probably nothing for a while. Maybe eventually some sysadmin would notice and complain. Maybe my supervisor would notice and complain. If I kept doing it after being warned not to do so, then I might get fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Yes, I admit that it is impossible to prove a negative. Do you admit that the appearance of taking so much money (whether to their foundation or to speaking fees for Bill) is unwise for a government official?

Bill Clinton was not a government official when he did those things. I don't think there's anything unwise about a private citizen collecting lots of money for a charity that does good works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Even if the Clintons weren't influenced by the $150 million +, doesn't this create the appearance of a conflict?

It can, sure. Money going to a charity is far less worrying to me than the run-of-the-mill legal campaign contributions, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
This "comically benign" method seems to have been successful.

Wait, what? How does it "seem" that way? You're assuming a quid pro quo. Show me something!

Where's the evidence here? Maybe you can't show me an attorney general declining to prosecute after getting a $25k campaign contribution, but can you show me anything that smells even comparably fishy? Something more than a meet and greet with donors? I'd like at least see some smoke before I yell fire.

You'll actually have considerably more success noting that Hillary worked as a senator for causes that were supported by her campaign donors. That's actually quite easy to demonstrate. And again, that's run-of-the-mill, utterly banal, legal corruption that's built into our system. This is what makes the Clinton foundation stuff so laughable to me. Why would anyone try such a strange way to influence a politician when there are such easy, direct, legal ones?

(To be fair, there's always a chicken-and-egg problem with campaign contributions. Are politicians voting a certain way because the interest groups give them money, or are the interest groups giving money to politicians because those politicians vote the way they like? Proving causality is very hard. But either way, it's very easy to make the connection - far easier than with the Clinton Foundation stuff.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109915)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2109885)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich10 (Post 2109878)
As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

There is a bias towards creating the appearance of parity. There is a bias towards not appearing to take sides. When one candidate is easily the least qualified and most scandal-ridden candidate of my lifetime, attempting to portray the problems each candidate has in the same light amounts to a massive bias. And yes, that's what we're seeing. "He said, she said" reporting only works when there's roughly an equal amount of rightness and wrongness on both sides. And there isn't; not even close.

Donald Trump's "charitable foundation" gave a $25k contribution to the PAC of the Florida attorney general while she was considering whether to press charges against Trump over Trump university. The foundation later claimed this was a clerical error and they had intended to give the money to a charity in Utah with a similar name (one they have never given money to before or since). Riiiiiight.

Go ahead, try to find one story in HRC's history that suggests anything even close to the same level of quid pro quo as that story. And yet, that story has gotten extremely little coverage, because it's lost in the whirlwind of insanity that is the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the e-mail scandal just keeps coming around and around, largely because there's just not a ton of other questionable stuff to talk about.

A combination of journalistic laziness and journalistic cowardice has led to a false balance that is actually, yes, quite biased.

If you don't think that there is a liberal bias to the media (excluding Fox), we will just have to agree to disagree.

To be blunt, this is a very broad, easy, lazy response. You're falling back on something you take as granted ("liberal media") without addressing what I wrote. I explained a very specific mechanic. Do you dispute that that mechanic is in play?

You yourself have admitted that Trump is a ridiculous, unqualified figure. So, go watch your NBC/ABC/CBS nightly news for a few nights. Watch how many segments are spent on negative stories on each candidate. Watch how much focus is given to each candidate's "gaffes" and "scandals".

What you will find is "balance". An obsession with covering the horse race. Equal weight given to both sides. Equal time spent on each side's critiques and failings. No real effort to play referee and say that one side is more right or wrong than the other. In an environment where one candidate actually is wrong more often, and actually is less qualified, by almost every reasonable measure, that's not balance. That's cowardice. That's hiding behind the veneer of balance by saying, "we are letting the viewer decide."

I don't dispute that the majority of mainstream media professionals are left leaning. That's well known. The question is whether that means that, in practice, they are biased towards the left in how they report the news. And the reality is that, particularly when it comes to election coverage, they are heavily biased towards making each candidate sound equally reasonable.

vegietarian18 September 15th, 2016 05:44 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I am not sure why reactions are so visceral, I was just sharing my thoughts and perspectives on what I thought is happening. I acknowledged the "narrative seeking" in the very post that you quoted...

I was just trying to discuss. Of course a 1/25 is possible, but it as at least worth discussing other reasons why unlikely outcomes occur

Ranior September 15th, 2016 06:01 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vegietarian18 (Post 2109931)
I am not sure why reactions are so visceral, I was just sharing my thoughts and perspectives on what I thought is happening. I acknowledged the "narrative seeking" in the very post that you quoted...

I was just trying to discuss. Of course a 1/25 is possible, but it as at least worth discussing other reasons why unlikely outcomes occur

I'm mostly being as visceral because the idea that the odds of Trump winning are anywhere close to 2/3 is not grounded in facts currently. It may be what you think, but I'd just like to be clear that is purely a gut opinion and is not supported by the current information that is to be had.

As for the 1/25 let's not pretend that figure it at all accurate. As Dok pointed out, the polls weren't even that off, and experts have admitted their mistakes. I've explained why using betting markets is full of flaws as their job is not to accurately forecast results but to make money. The very assumption than anything unlikely has occurred thus far is something that would need to be discussed. Instead the polling has for the most part been remarkably accurate, and there is currently every reason to believe that if an election were to happen today, that Clintion would win by being anywhere between about 0-6 percentage points ahead of Trump representing her approximately 3 point lead and error of uncertainty inherent in polling.

You are more than welcome to think otherwise, but don't be surprised if I and perhaps others will come to defend what the current experts and facts support, rather than what some gut opinions are that the systems in place are missing some large factor that actually would indicate Trump is a significant favorite to win this race. The truth is he is not. He is currently the underdog and is less likely to win than Clinton.

vegietarian18 September 15th, 2016 06:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I used 1/25 because you did, not for some sinister purpose to try and make it sound unreasonable.

Her lead is 2.3 points, which is closer to 2 than 3 according to my calculations. I am not a poll expert as you are though.

I am okay with defense of the experts, just kind of confused why you are attacking me personally for trying to think about why Trump has succeeded


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.