The worse the economy goes, the worse a bastard we get.
With the rate the economy's going, we're going to have President Spencer and Prime Minister Robinson in 2024.
Advertisement
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:36 pm
by Post War America » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:36 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Post War America wrote:
I mean, Fascism is a form of capitalism collapsing, definitely not ideal tho.
The worse the economy goes, the worse a bastard we get.
With the rate the economy's going, we're going to have President Spencer and Prime Minister Robinson in 2024.
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by Cannot think of a name » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:39 pm
Inhorto wrote:Zurkerx wrote:Biden wants a new stimulus 'a hell of a lot bigger' than $2 trillion, calling for a huge, new green infrastructure bill to be part of the deal.
It seems based on rhetoric that Biden is adapting more Progressive Ideals. Maybe not to the full extreme like Sanders or Warren but he is moving a bit to the left per se. I'll give Biden credit: he's trying not to do the same mistakes Clinton has done.
He's adopting more progressive ideas for now. He will pivot during the general election.
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:40 pm
by Post War America » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:42 pm
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by Valrifell » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:45 pm
by South Odreria 2 » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:47 pm
Valrifell wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.
That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:47 pm
Valrifell wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.
That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.
by Agarntrop » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:47 pm
by Agarntrop » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:48 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Valrifell wrote:
That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.
Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:49 pm
Agarntrop wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.
now you are spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence.
whats next, the rnc and dnc faked the moon landings?
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:50 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:51 pm
by Tarsonis » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:52 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Agarntrop wrote:now you are spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence.
whats next, the rnc and dnc faked the moon landings?
"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."
"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"
by Agarntrop » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:52 pm
Tarsonis wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."
"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"
That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.
by Valrifell » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:54 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Valrifell wrote:
That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.
Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...
by Tarsonis » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:54 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Agarntrop wrote:5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely
You do realise that includes both sides, so it's more 2.5%. And a 2.5% event happening several times independently is generally an indicator of false results.
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:54 pm
Tarsonis wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."
"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"
That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.
by Tarsonis » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:01 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.
Because I had accepted the previous possible answers as a premise, as an axiom. That wasn't the question. The question was:
"Had the DNC rigged the primary, and presuming it did, why was it rigged in favour of Joe Biden?"
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:06 pm
Tarsonis wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Because I had accepted the previous possible answers as a premise, as an axiom. That wasn't the question. The question was:
"Had the DNC rigged the primary, and presuming it did, why was it rigged in favour of Joe Biden?"
Um no. What you said was,The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.
Your question implied that the DNC conspiring for Joe Biden, was a fact, not a hypothetical premise.
And then made several posts arguing why it was a fact.
by Tarsonis » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:10 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
Um no. What you said was,
Your question implied that the DNC conspiring for Joe Biden, was a fact, not a hypothetical premise.
And then made several posts arguing why it was a fact.
Yes, but you're arguing about the premise of the question, not the question itself. I can demonstrate evidence for the premise, but don't act like I don't have evidence just because I didn't explain it in a million-word essay.
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:46 pm
Tarsonis wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Yes, but you're arguing about the premise of the question, not the question itself. I can demonstrate evidence for the premise, but don't act like I don't have evidence just because I didn't explain it in a million-word essay.
Because unless you actually present said evidence and explain why it is, then we have no reason to eaccept the premise or your question. You're operating under the premise that the the DNC rigging the election for Joe Biden is a fact, but are now trying to weasel your way out of it now that everyone's called bullshit. Either show your work and prove your premise, or present your premise in a manner of a hypothetical where we can actually pontificate it.
by Duvniask » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:06 pm
Valrifell wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...
I'm curious to see where you got the "there's only a 5% chance that happens naturally" sounds like there could be fun math there, even if it is statistics. Further, what do you mean by "many areas"? The majority? A plurality? A solid chunk?
I'd think the likelihood of something occurring would depend on the size of our sample, so that'd be good to know.
by Varmhjarta » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:12 pm
by Valrifell » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:32 pm
Duvniask wrote:Agarntrop wrote:5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely
Anyone who deals in statistics should knows about null-hypotheses, which as a rule assume no significance*, and that they are usually rejected when probability is estimated to be lower than 5% from a normal distribution (in this case, the sampling distribution of exit polls, assuming they are randomized).
*In this case, assumes no significant difference between the poll and the election result.
Also, using basic rules of probability for independent events, we multiply the chances of the event occurring with itself by each time it did. So if the exit polls had a ≤5% chance of being off each time, and that happened 5 times, then the probability of that happening is 0.055 = 0.0000003125 or 0.00003125%. In other words, not freaking likely.Valrifell wrote:
I'm curious to see where you got the "there's only a 5% chance that happens naturally" sounds like there could be fun math there, even if it is statistics. Further, what do you mean by "many areas"? The majority? A plurality? A solid chunk?
I'd think the likelihood of something occurring would depend on the size of our sample, so that'd be good to know.
A poll with a margin of error of, say, 3% and a 95% confidence interval, will tell you that the true value is within 3% of the estimate with 95% probability.
Let's say a hypothetical poll estimated 45% support for Sanders, margin of error 3%. Then we'd be able to say there's a 95% probability of the true population value being +/- 3 percentage points from 45%. The 95% confidence interval would thus be [0.42; 0.48]. If the actual result was 35% Sanders, then something would be very wrong here, either with the poll or the results themselves, because there was only a 5% chance of the results being more than 3 percentage points off (in our hypothetical example they were 10 percentage points off).
Also, the margin of error is dependent on the sample size, n, as it is calculated from multiplying the given critical value with the standard error (which contains the sample size). It is already taken into consideration. A smaller sample size will yield a larger standard error, which in turn yields a larger margin of error.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Deblar, Dogmeat, East Leaf Republic, Elejamie, Emotional Support Crocodile, Infected Mushroom, Plan Neonie, Stratonesia, Tungstan, Yasuragi
Advertisement