2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Cisairse]

That's not the polls being wrong, that's just Trump winning despite extremely low odds.

Saying an outcome and being wrong about it still is being wrong.

@Cirs

The extreme youth generally is very left leaning and has largely been for the last 70 years.

And? That doesn't mean Biden is relying on them at all. In fact, Biden is relying on senior citizens a lot more than Hillary did.

[Imperialisium]

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

Those aren't polls, silly, those are mathematical models built in with classic punitry in mind to yield easy-to-digest probabilities for the masses to have a basic understanding of the race at a glance. The results, again, were within the MoE in every state with the exception of WI, which was quickly identified as an error of undersampling certain populations there, which was quickly corrected for future races such as 2018, which was pretty much as close to "on the money" as you can get.

I've been saying this for four years, the polls weren't wrong, the pundits were. That you were so easily fed narratives is not the problem of math.

Nope.

While some polls were more accurate (or at least accounted for more) they were largely incorrect. Why there was the left wing meltdown as states predicted to go Hillary suddenly went Trump.

[Valrifell]

That's not the polls being wrong, that's just Trump winning despite extremely low odds.

Well they can't have all been right. Did he have a 35% chance of victory, or a <1% chance of victory, because noth of those numbers were thrown out there?

Depends on the model that they calculated with and how it was weighted. We should note that the several professional statisticians tended to gravitate towards the higher numbers and political pundits tended to write him off completely.

[Cisairse]

Those aren't polls, silly, those are mathematical models built in with classic punitry in mind to yield easy-to-digest probabilities for the masses to have a basic understanding of the race at a glance. The results, again, were within the MoE in every state with the exception of WI, which was quickly identified as an error of undersampling certain populations there, which was quickly corrected for future races such as 2018, which was pretty much as close to "on the money" as you can get.

I've been saying this for four years, the polls weren't wrong, the pundits were. That you were so easily fed narratives is not the problem of math.

Nope.

While some polls were more accurate (or at least accounted for more) they were largely incorrect. Why there was the left wing meltdown as states predicted to go Hillary suddenly went Trump.

Because they, like you, believed the pundits over the (mostly correct) polls.

[Thermodolia]

This is extremely optimistic for Biden.

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

I would throw Georgia in bidens corner as well

[Imperialisium]

Saying an outcome and being wrong about it still is being wrong.

@Cirs

The extreme youth generally is very left leaning and has largely been for the last 70 years.

And? That doesn't mean Biden is relying on them at all. In fact, Biden is relying on senior citizens a lot more than Hillary did.

That demographic matters more and more as the older generation slowly dies off? I’m sure the senior citizens make a good share of voters but that doesn’t really remove the fact that the extreme youth also typically vote left.

[Thermodolia]

The polls literally weren't wrong though. Pretty much everything was within margin of error as predicted by polling.

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

Those wherent the polls. That was pundits saying she couldn’t possibly lose even though she was well within margin of error in several states

[Imperialisium]

Nope.

While some polls were more accurate (or at least accounted for more) they were largely incorrect. Why there was the left wing meltdown as states predicted to go Hillary suddenly went Trump.

Because they, like you, believed the pundits over the (mostly correct) polls.

Nope. Nor did I believe the pundits either. Nice try on the fallacy.

[Telconi]

Well they can't have all been right. Did he have a 35% chance of victory, or a <1% chance of victory, because noth of those numbers were thrown out there?

Depends on the model that they calculated with and how it was weighted. We should note that the several professional statisticians tended to gravitate towards the higher numbers and political pundits tended to write him off completely.

The point being we really can't know one way or the other, we have a grand total sample size of one.

Maybe 2016 was a one in a hundred occurence, maybe it was a one in three occurence, maybe it was basically a one in two. We really can't ever know how factually true any given prediction was.

[Cordel One]

It would be very ironic if Trump died of the disease that he helped spread with his incompetence.
No, I'm not advocating for death because that's against the rules.

[Valrifell]

Those aren't polls, silly, those are mathematical models built in with classic punitry in mind to yield easy-to-digest probabilities for the masses to have a basic understanding of the race at a glance. The results, again, were within the MoE in every state with the exception of WI, which was quickly identified as an error of undersampling certain populations there, which was quickly corrected for future races such as 2018, which was pretty much as close to "on the money" as you can get.

I've been saying this for four years, the polls weren't wrong, the pundits were. That you were so easily fed narratives is not the problem of math.

Nope.

While some polls were more accurate (or at least accounted for more) they were largely incorrect. Why there was the left wing meltdown as states predicted to go Hillary suddenly went Trump.

The "leftist meltdown" happened because of the mathematical illiteracy in the laymen of the nation. Trump winning was always a possibility accounted for in the numbers and any good faith retrospective would tell you that.

Pundits interpreted what polls mean and the MoE incorrectly, and relayed this wrong information to the common people. Again, the only anomaly to speak of was WI.

Even supposing that pollsters were wrong in 2016, that was four years ago. You can not deny that they were incredibly accurate in 2018, so why are you conveniently ignoring when the polls and results are non-controversial and easily reconcilable? It's foolish to presume that, if they were wrong in 2016, staticians would sit on their ass and do nothing for four years instead of improving their methodology.

Either case we can conclude polls are more accurate than they were in 2016 and your whole argument is meaningless either way.

[Imperialisium]

Except they were. Went from like 90%+ hillary winning to having to literally change several times throughout the election in November as states went totally at odds with prediction.

Those wherent the polls. That was pundits saying she couldn’t possibly lose even though she was well within margin of error in several states

And they kept sourcing from polls...which the polls largely were saying the same thing...and there are many polls. So did Hillary win? Because if they weren’t wrong then how is Trump POTUS?

[Valrifell]

Depends on the model that they calculated with and how it was weighted. We should note that the several professional statisticians tended to gravitate towards the higher numbers and political pundits tended to write him off completely.

The point being we really can't know one way or the other, we have a grand total sample size of one.

Maybe 2016 was a one in a hundred occurence, maybe it was a one in three occurence, maybe it was basically a one in two. We really can't ever know how factually true any given prediction was.

This is also a fair take.

[Valrifell]

Those wherent the polls. That was pundits saying she couldn’t possibly lose even though she was well within margin of error in several states

And they kept sourcing from polls...which the polls largely were saying the same thing...and there are many polls. So did Hillary win? Because if they weren’t wrong then how is Trump POTUS?

Do you straight up not understand the concept of a margin of error.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Depends on the model that they calculated with and how it was weighted. We should note that the several professional statisticians tended to gravitate towards the higher numbers and political pundits tended to write him off completely.

The point being we really can't know one way or the other, we have a grand total sample size of one.

Maybe 2016 was a one in a hundred occurence, maybe it was a one in three occurence, maybe it was basically a one in two. We really can't ever know how factually true any given prediction was.

From what you are saying, I can't escape the feeling that you don't really know how statistics work beyond the very basics.

[Vassenor]

So are we just going to go through this song and dance every time there's a prediction that isn't a #TRUMPLANDSLIDE2020?

[Cisairse]

It is mostly a direct translation of Nate Silver's divine prophecies into a map. The only conclusions I make beyond what the numbers already imply is handing Iowa, Ohio, and NC to Biden — Biden is leading in the latter two and currently trailing in the former. In my opinion, if my map were to be wrong, the most likely mistake would be that Trump ultimately wins Iowa. However, Iowa is a notoriously difficult state to poll and I imagine that turnout will be more important there than daily polling suggests.

I would throw Georgia in bidens corner as well

Georgia I am not so sure about. It's in toss-up category, and I believe that voter suppression will move it into a narrow Trump victory.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Those wherent the polls. That was pundits saying she couldn’t possibly lose even though she was well within margin of error in several states

And they kept sourcing from polls...which the polls largely were saying the same thing...and there are many polls. So did Hillary win? Because if they weren’t wrong then how is Trump POTUS?

I don't think you understand what margin of error is in polling. Which isn't a bad thing, you just appear to be speaking from ignorance.

[Imperialisium]

Nope.

While some polls were more accurate (or at least accounted for more) they were largely incorrect. Why there was the left wing meltdown as states predicted to go Hillary suddenly went Trump.

The "leftist meltdown" happened because of the mathematical illiteracy in the laymen of the nation. Trump winning was always a possibility accounted for in the numbers and any good faith retrospective would tell you that.

Pundits interpreted what polls mean and the MoE incorrectly, and relayed this wrong information to the common people. Again, the only anomaly to speak of was WI.

Even supposing that pollsters were wrong in 2016, that was four years ago. You can not deny that they were incredibly accurate in 2018, so why are you conveniently ignoring when the polls and results are non-controversial and easily reconcilable? It's foolish to presume that, if they were wrong in 2016, staticians would sit on their ass and do nothing for four years instead of improving their methodology.

Either case we can conclude polls are more accurate than they were in 2016 and your whole argument is meaningless either way.

Nope.

Also your argument is entirely illogical because you’re presuming vast leaps. Essentially you’re committing a cardinal discussion sin by *inventing an argument for me because that’s all you can respond too apparently*.

[Cisairse]

So are we just going to go through this song and dance every time there's a prediction that isn't a #TRUMPLANDSLIDE2020?

Yes.

[Valrifell]

The "leftist meltdown" happened because of the mathematical illiteracy in the laymen of the nation. Trump winning was always a possibility accounted for in the numbers and any good faith retrospective would tell you that.

Pundits interpreted what polls mean and the MoE incorrectly, and relayed this wrong information to the common people. Again, the only anomaly to speak of was WI.

Even supposing that pollsters were wrong in 2016, that was four years ago. You can not deny that they were incredibly accurate in 2018, so why are you conveniently ignoring when the polls and results are non-controversial and easily reconcilable? It's foolish to presume that, if they were wrong in 2016, staticians would sit on their ass and do nothing for four years instead of improving their methodology.

Either case we can conclude polls are more accurate than they were in 2016 and your whole argument is meaningless either way.

Nope.

Also your argument is entirely illogical because you’re presuming vast leaps. Essentially you’re committing a cardinal discussion sin by *inventing an argument for me because that’s all you can respond too apparently*.

Nope.

Also your argument is entirely illogical because you're not willing to educate yourself on how these things actually work, willingly electing to maintain ignorance. Essentially you're committing the cardinal sin of "I won't listen to anything you're saying because there's no way I can be wrong"

[Cordel One]

So are we just going to go through this song and dance every time there's a prediction that isn't a #TRUMPLANDSLIDE2020?

Looks like it.

[Thermodolia]

Those wherent the polls. That was pundits saying she couldn’t possibly lose even though she was well within margin of error in several states

And they kept sourcing from polls...which the polls largely were saying the same thing...and there are many polls. So did Hillary win? Because if they weren’t wrong then how is Trump POTUS?

The polls where not saying that she had a 90% chance they where saying she had a 50/50 shot. If you actually read the polls instead relying on pundits you would have known this.

Also in just about every case undecideds where around double digits and not in the low single digits they are today. Trump pulled the vast majority of those undecideds.

The pundits saw 48 over 46 and said there’s no way Clinton would lose when the margin for error was 4.5 and the undecideds where sky high

[Thermodolia]

I would throw Georgia in bidens corner as well

Georgia I am not so sure about. It's in toss-up category, and I believe that voter suppression will move it into a narrow Trump victory.

Interestingly enough voter suppression is worse in Texas than here. The current head of elections plus the courts have all seen to that

[Imperialisium]

And they kept sourcing from polls...which the polls largely were saying the same thing...and there are many polls. So did Hillary win? Because if they weren’t wrong then how is Trump POTUS?

I don't think you understand what margin of error is in polling. Which isn't a bad thing, you just appear to be speaking from ignorance.

I’m not speaking of ignorance. I know very well how margin of errors work given my background. The problem with NSG is the precedence of taking a generic outcome pertaining to the outcome of something and then extrapolating it to create an entire persona, narrative, and even argument for the person you’re disagreeing with.

“Polls were wrong because of outcome,” isn’t technically incorrect. They (which can be any number of specific polls) predicted the wrong outcome of who won. No more or less from that comment should and could be gleaned. But as you see no one wants to really discuss how that happened or why they disagree; or, could it feasibly occur in predicting the outcome of the 2020 election. So they instead go for the horrible fallacies of just invalidating the person by going “you’re ignorant, you don’t know math, you are X here.”