Trump is so stupid that he doesn't realize that folks are making fun of him by meming him into Nero

[EyeBRollin]

Funny, when you go back and look at Nate Silvers work, he seemed to be pushing an agenda.

The guy was wrong EVERY STEP OF THE WAY regarding Trump.

Nate Silver Said Donald Trump Had No Shot. Where Did He Go Wrong?

For the past six months, one big question has loomed over the 2016 election: Is the candidacy of Donald J. Trump an amusing bit of reality TV or a...

slate.com

I think the porblem here is people believeing anything anti-Trump because they WANT IT to be true.

This is no different than hearing a girl tell you "oh me and that guy are just friends".

No, he clearly said in 2016 there is a high degree of uncertainty and that a 30% chance of Trump victory is significant.

We know from statistics that anything less than 2 standard deviations (95%) is uncertain, and only one standard deviation (middle 68%) is basically a coin flip.

Nate Silver himself says polls are garbage....

Not all polls are equal. The methodology matters. Individual polls taken in isolation are useless. However, aggregates taken over time are highly predictive.

“Law of large numbers”

 

[samspade]

"Four years ago, the Free Press and EPIC-MRA reported results of a poll the weekend ahead of that year’s Democratic [Michigan] primary that showed Hillary Clinton with a 25-point lead on Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. It was one of several polls that showed the former secretary of state with such a lead.

"Sanders went on to win a narrow 1.4-percentage-point victory in the primary, however, as younger voters, who overwhelmingly supported Sanders, came out in much greater numbers than expected and he ran up large vote totals outside metro Detroit compared with Clinton. It was a signature surprise win for Sanders and one that Nate Silver, the founder of FiveThirtyEight.com, which analyzes statistical and polling data, said could count among “the greatest polling errors in primary history.”

Joe Biden holds 24-point lead vs. Bernie Sanders in Michigan primary, Free Press poll says

The latest Free Press/EPIC-MRA poll shows Joe Biden with a 24-point lead over Bernie Sanders heading into Tuesday's Michigan presidential primary

eu.freep.com

 

[EyeBRollin]

"Four years ago, the Free Press and EPIC-MRA reported results of a poll the weekend ahead of that year’s Democratic [Michigan] primary that showed Hillary Clinton with a 25-point lead on Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. It was one of several polls that showed the former secretary of state with such a lead.

"Sanders went on to win a narrow 1.4-percentage-point victory in the primary, however, as younger voters, who overwhelmingly supported Sanders, came out in much greater numbers than expected and he ran up large vote totals outside metro Detroit compared with Clinton. It was a signature surprise win for Sanders and one that Nate Silver, the founder of FiveThirtyEight.com, which analyzes statistical and polling data, said could count among “the greatest polling errors in primary history.”

Joe Biden holds 24-point lead vs. Bernie Sanders in Michigan primary, Free Press poll says

The latest Free Press/EPIC-MRA poll shows Joe Biden with a 24-point lead over Bernie Sanders heading into Tuesday's Michigan presidential primary

eu.freep.com

Sounds like a ****ty poll.

It was clear he was wrong every step of the way regarding Trump, and only at the end did Nate give a possibity for Trump to win. Mostly out of fear I would wager.

Aggregates from $hitty polls make.....$hitty aggregates.

Sounds like his personal assessment about Trump as a candidate was different from the actual election forecast.

 

[EyeBRollin]

More like his history of forecasting Trump was outrageously wrong right up until the morning of the election, where he then hedged his bets to save future credibility.

The 2016 primary forecast looks accurate:

Iowa Republican Caucus Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight

Polls and predictions for the 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

It looks like you’re having trouble separating mathematical interpretations with what people personally say about a candidate.

One can think Trump is a clown but still accept if odds shoot to 95% chance of re-election he will be a certain favorite to win.

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. That is funny coming from the guy who refused to consider mathematical interpretations on the Presiden't impact on the market.

2. And I guess you intend that message for Nate Silver, not me, since HE is the one who held the opposing opinions and "mathematics".

3. I realize this is likely too complex for you to follow at this point, but you realize you are referencing Nate Silver as if he is THE EXPERT, but then dismissing Nate's expertise when inconvenient?

1. Mindless ad hominem attack. You got nothing.

2. The primary forecast was the published work. You prefer to bvtch about personal opinions.

3. There are plenty of reputable alternative election forecasters - Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Rachel Bitecofer. They largely end up with similar results. You can go with the math or go with your gut. Just don’t be depressed when Trump loses.

 

[EyeBRollin]

If between 2 candidates each had a 50% chance of winning, it's not really saying anything. You can come up with that prediction by flipping a coin and end up being just as accurate without the polling data.

If one candidate had such high odds that it was a near certainty, such as Trump winning the Republican primary, you're stating what is so obvious you really wouldn't need polling data to make such a determination.

So when odds say 60%... that's actually stating something in a grey area of uncertainty. It doesn't matter if in statistical terms it may be "less than one standard deviation". You're ultimately claiming that you're seeing data that favors one candidate over the other.

It’s your interpretation that’s wrong. 60% is marginally favorable odds. It’s only slightly better than a coin flip.

The MSM went much further than this 60%.

I don’t think MSM is credible.

Fivethirtyeight, a source you already threw at me, gave Hillary a 71.2% chance of winning.

Yep, you still ignore that is 3/10 chance of losing. Doesn’t fit your narrative.

The New York Times published data that gave Hillary an 84% chance of winning.

Latest Election Polls 2016

Get the latest national and state polls on the presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.

www.nytimes.com

These were not polls released weeks or months before election day, before events in the news cycles may have swayed numbers one way or another. They were released on Nov 8th, the day of the election.

That’s a more definitive spread than 70%, though still far below a level of certainty. The relationship is nonlinear. That’s about a 1/6 chance of losing. Uncommon, but highly possible.

NBC News/SurveyMonkey had Hillary winning by 7 percentage points a week prior to the election.

That doesn’t sound credible but I didn’t look at their methodology.

Yup. Heard it before...

Unchanged from last cycle when Democrats picked up 41 seats.

 

[MatureDJ]

Fumny how it was racist when Trump moved to ban China travel but now suddenly he is Nero.

Liberals REALLY need to form their own tard nation so they can tear themselves apart from their mental gymnastics, and leave the rest of us out of it.

Uh, Trump himself is pushing this meme.

 

[MatureDJ]

Are you sure about that?

How about sharing that meme you are talking about...

Trump tweeted this photo. Yes, someone that wanted to make fun of him made the photo, but Trump tweeted it. The whole gist of my post was that Trump is so stupid that he doesn't know when he's being made sport of.

 

[samspade]

Yep, you still ignore that is 3/10 chance of losing. Doesn’t fit your narrative.

That's daft. 70% is much, much better than 30%. Were there headlines screaming "Trump Has 30% Chance of Victory!" in 2016? I didn't see any.

This is why I trust Vegas and not egghead pollsters. They want to draw in equal bets on both sides to maximize profits so they set the odds accordingly.

 

[EyeBRollin]

That's daft. 70% is much, much better than 30%. Were there headlines screaming "Trump Has 30% Chance of Victory!" in 2016? I didn't see any.

That’s a strawman argument.

This is why I trust Vegas and not egghead pollsters. They want to draw in equal bets on both sides to maximize profits so they set the odds accordingly.

What are those Vegas odds are based on?

 

[EyeBRollin]

Doesn't matter how marginal.

The margin is everything! There’s a huge difference between going from 85% to 95% probability than from 55% to 65%.

It's a statement nonetheless: you're very clearly making the claim that data gives one candidate the more favorable odds. The more you try to downplay the significance of such a statement by claiming statistical insignificance in the margins, the more your watering down the predictive quality, the very purpose of these polls to begin with. They become nothing more qualitative than a coin toss.

You cant throw numbers out to claim doom for the Republican party with such confidence only to hide behind claims of statistical insignificance to shield against criticisms of that data.

The point is a 60% chance of Trump winning means Trump is more likely than not to win, but is far from a *certain* winner. A loss does not constitute the “polling was wrong” until we get into statistical certainty, which is at least two standard deviation units.

It is only the wiggle room needed to admit the data was wrong in forecasting the most probable winner. But you don't want to do that.

A probable win is not a certain win.

I'd like to take a look at these sources claiming 7%.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2020 Generic Congressional Vote

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2020 Generic Congressional Vote

www.realclearpolitics.com

Do Voters Want Democrats Or Republicans In Congress?

Latest polls that ask people whether they would vote for a Democratic or Republican candidate in their congressional district or whether they would prefer Democrats or Republicans to control Congress.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

What is your interpretation of those?

 

[samspade]

That’s a strawman argument.

That 70 is higher than 30 is a fact. Hilary was given at least this much of a chance to win. Or a 3/10 chance of losing as you said.

As for Vegas, you would have to ask the oddsmakers. It is their profession and they do well at it. Can't plan for every variable, but they plan for most. However they were off on Election Day 2016 as well. Trump was +130 as late as 9:30 pm. Even at 8 pm he was +550. If you'd put $100 on Trump at 8 pm THAT NIGHT you'd have won $550. Hey, sometimes the underdog wins.

 

[EyeBRollin]

That 70 is higher than 30 is a fact. Hilary was given at least this much of a chance to win. Or a 3/10 chance of losing as you said.

Correct. So what was your point in repeating in what I already established?

As for Vegas, you would have to ask the oddsmakers. It is their profession and they do well at it. Can't plan for every variable, but they plan for most. However they were off on Election Day 2016 as well. Trump was +130 as late as 9:30 pm. Even at 8 pm he was +550. If you'd put $100 on Trump at 8 pm THAT NIGHT you'd have won $550. Hey, sometimes the underdog wins.

Vegas odds are usually good and they have mathematicians hard at work. Yes, sometimes the underdog does win!

 

[Bible_Belt]

I want data that suggests Trump is going to lose the presidential election as you claim.

I would guess any poll taken after the coronavirus chaos would show that data. His administration is the reason there are inadequate test kits, which makes the virus spread more. We are a worldwide laughstock yet again. It's unfortunate we don't have leadership like South Korea. They have their act together on testing. In Seattle alone, the number of infected people is going to be 10 to 100x what is being reported now, because there are not enough tests.

Vegas ought to take two bets, trump losing the election, and trump leaving office, because they are not the same thing. That is what happens in 3rd world countries when the dictator loses an election. He calls the election a fraud and refuses to leave. Can you honestly say you see zero chance of that happening? I can't. I see it as very likely. And remember the supreme court is mostly empty suits by now. They might back overturning the election. And then the Constitution finally dies.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Statistically yes. But it makes no difference to the bottom line claim: Hillary has the better odds to win.

If I were to claim there is a 60% chance of rain tomorrow and it doesn't rain, that doesn't mean I was spot on because there was a 40% chance I was wrong.

Yes it does mean you were correct. 6/10 days with identical conditions will rain, 4/10 days it won’t. Why won’t you accept that?

I agree, but you're so certain Trump is going to lose, obviously because you put some sort of meaningful stock into the better odds that these polls are suggesting.

If you really believed what you just said, you wouldn't be so insistent that Trump is going to lose. You would be cautiously hopeful at best.

I am 100% certain Trump will lose the popular vote. At this point, it is unclear how that will translate into the individual battleground states.

You're giving me congressional polling. I want data that suggests Trump is going to lose the presidential election as you claim.

Congressional polling in Presidential cycles is accurate gauge of Presidential popular vote. In fact, the President usually slightly underperforms down ballot candidates. Trump underperformed Republicans in Congress by 3% in 2016. Hillary was even with Congressional Democrats.

 

[samspade]

Correct. So what was your point in repeating in what I already established?

Totally forgot, lol.

 

[corrector]

I would guess any poll taken after the coronavirus chaos would show that data. His administration is the reason there are inadequate test kits, which makes the virus spread more. We are a worldwide laughstock yet again. It's unfortunate we don't have leadership like South Korea. They have their act together on testing. In Seattle alone, the number of infected people is going to be 10 to 100x what is being reported now, because there are not enough tests.

Vegas ought to take two bets, trump losing the election, and trump leaving office, because they are not the same thing. That is what happens in 3rd world countries when the dictator loses an election. He calls the election a fraud and refuses to leave. Can you honestly say you see zero chance of that happening? I can't. I see it as very likely. And remember the supreme court is mostly empty suits by now. They might back overturning the election. And then the Constitution finally dies.

The Constitution only holds for 2 terms though. You still have that.

 

[samspade]

Vegas ought to take two bets, trump losing the election, and trump leaving office, because they are not the same thing. That is what happens in 3rd world countries when the dictator loses an election. He calls the election a fraud and refuses to leave. Can you honestly say you see zero chance of that happening? I can't. I see it as very likely. And remember the supreme court is mostly empty suits by now. They might back overturning the election. And then the Constitution finally dies.

Only works if the military is behind you. But I think you're getting a little nuts with your projections.

 

[EyeBRollin]

What happens when there is actual election fraud?

Setting up the excuse already.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Already denying it even when it is proven illegals are voting?

Already planting your excuse for losing.