2020 US General Election Thread VI: Covid for VP!

[Ifreann]

Video has emerged of Tara Reade's mother phoning in to Larry King in 1993 to ask how her daughter might deal with "problems" she had with a prominent senator other than going to the press.

But you know, "problems" could be anything. This doesn't definitively prove that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. No court would convict him based on an anonymous phone call to a talk show. Phrases you should all familiarise yourselves with, because I'm betting we'll hear them until the end of the Biden campaign.

[Albrenia]

Video has emerged of Tara Reade's mother phoning in to Larry King in 1993 to ask how her daughter might deal with "problems" she had with a prominent senator other than going to the press.

But you know, "problems" could be anything. This doesn't definitively prove that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. No court would convict him based on an anonymous phone call to a talk show. Phrases you should all familiarise yourselves with, because I'm betting we'll hear them until the end of the Biden campaign.

Is there a way someone can waive the statute of limitations on something? This really needs legitimate investigating or else it creates huge problems for the coming election.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

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.


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.

I know how MoE is calculated and what the means, that wasn't what my question was directed at.

What I am saying is that, let's say, there were five elections in which one candidate was off by 5% from the exit polling. Again, 0.05⁵ = 0.00003125%.

In short, I think we'd need to take a look at exit polling vs state results and do that for every single state so far.

[Valrifell]

Video has emerged of Tara Reade's mother phoning in to Larry King in 1993 to ask how her daughter might deal with "problems" she had with a prominent senator other than going to the press.

But you know, "problems" could be anything. This doesn't definitively prove that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. No court would convict him based on an anonymous phone call to a talk show. Phrases you should all familiarise yourselves with, because I'm betting we'll hear them until the end of the Biden campaign.

Or for a month or two.

[Valrifell]

If Reade's story were orchestrated, it would've been far better to save it for an October surprise, doing it now serves no direct benefit considering how shaky it is. It's not terribly unlikely that this gets dropped as the news cycle progresses, since there's only so much the press can milk from this story.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Just looked at 538 for Super Tuesday.

It's some shady shit, particularly with Texas.

[Valrifell]

I know how MoE is calculated and what the means, that wasn't what my question was directed at.

What I am saying is that, let's say, there were five elections in which one candidate was off by 5% from the exit polling. Again, 0.05⁵ = 0.00003125%.

In short, I think we'd need to take a look at exit polling vs state results and do that for every single state so far.

That's not what you said originally, but okay.

Also note that multiplying probabilities together is only valid if the events are independent, and I'm quite hesitant to say that election primaries are disjoint from one another like a coin flip is, and it makes sense that the combinatorics involved would be a smidge more complex than that.

Conveniently, CNN has all the exit polls one could want. I'd figure I'd share this data as we trudge through together on this magical journey.

[Valrifell]

Just looked at 538 for Super Tuesday.

It's some shady shit, particularly with Texas.

You saying this without providing context or showing your work is getting old, I don't like having to ask for stuff that should've been in the post in the first place.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

What I am saying is that, let's say, there were five elections in which one candidate was off by 5% from the exit polling. Again, 0.05⁵ = 0.00003125%.

In short, I think we'd need to take a look at exit polling vs state results and do that for every single state so far.

That's not what you said originally, but okay.

Also note that multiplying probabilities together is only valid if the events are independent, and I'm quite hesitant to say that election primaries are disjoint from one another like a coin flip is, and it makes sense that the combinatorics involved would be a smidge more complex than that.

Conveniently, CNN has all the exit polls one could want. I'd figure I'd share this data as we trudge through together on this magical journey.

It's what I meant, sorry if I was unclear.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... gates-live

Guardian has the totals. I can't find the total exit poll on CNN...

[Ifreann]

Video has emerged of Tara Reade's mother phoning in to Larry King in 1993 to ask how her daughter might deal with "problems" she had with a prominent senator other than going to the press.

But you know, "problems" could be anything. This doesn't definitively prove that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade. No court would convict him based on an anonymous phone call to a talk show. Phrases you should all familiarise yourselves with, because I'm betting we'll hear them until the end of the Biden campaign.

Is there a way someone can waive the statute of limitations on something? This really needs legitimate investigating or else it creates huge problems for the coming election.

To the best of my knowledge no such option exists. But the statue of limitations pertains only to prosecutions. An investigation could proceed regardless, but that would be pretty unusual, and there would be big questions about who would conduct this investigation and to whom they would report.

[Uiiop]

Is there a way someone can waive the statute of limitations on something? This really needs legitimate investigating or else it creates huge problems for the coming election.

To the best of my knowledge no such option exists. But the statue of limitations pertains only to prosecutions. An investigation could proceed regardless, but that would be pretty unusual, and there would be big questions about who would conduct this investigation and to whom they would report.

Well we know it's the DC metro conducting one.

But who they report to? I do not know.

[Cannot think of a name]

Is there a way someone can waive the statute of limitations on something? This really needs legitimate investigating or else it creates huge problems for the coming election.

To the best of my knowledge no such option exists. But the statue of limitations pertains only to prosecutions. An investigation could proceed regardless, but that would be pretty unusual, and there would be big questions about who would conduct this investigation and to whom they would report.

The sources for this lean in a particular direction but that seems to be a rating of newsworthiness rather than someone making something up, so excuse the use of the Examiner...

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia is actively investigating the complaint against Joe Biden brought by Tara Reade, the woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, despite her allegation being impossible to prosecute since it is past the statute of limitations.

“This is an active, ongoing investigation, and there are no further details to provide at this time,” a Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson told the Washington Examiner Tuesday regarding Reade’s case. “Cases that are handled by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Sexual Assault Unit go through a multi-review prior to being assigned a disposition. This case is progressing through the review process.”

The investigation remaining open, despite the alleged incident occurring past the statute of limitations, struck multiple experts as highly unusual.

On April 9, Reade filed an incident report with the D.C. police that said she “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade has confirmed that Subject-2 is Joe Biden, 77, who was a Delaware senator from 1973-2009 before becoming President Barack Obama's vice president.

Reade, 56, said that she filed an incident report for “safety reasons,” for the purpose of establishing a paper trail in case “something happened to me” and to show that she is serious about her allegation since it is illegal to make a false police report. Since coming forward with her allegations against Biden, she regularly receives threatening and vulgar messages, she told the Washington Examiner.

Because the incident is past the statute of limitations, she told the Washington Examiner that she expected the police to do no more than note her complaint and not investigate it. Reade told the Washington Examiner that she has no plans to sue Biden in civil court, where D.C. has removed the statute of limitations on sex crimes.

Also, weird thing caught in the net looking for clarification...Biden rejected a donation from Louis C.K.

The Biden presidential campaign announced on Wednesday that it would refund a $2,800 donation comedian Louis C.K., who has been accused of multiple instances of sexual misconduct.

The donation was made on March 4, according to Federal Election Commission records. That was one day after Biden’s sweeping Super Tuesday victories that put him on a path to defeat progressive rival Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

Again probably an issue of what was considered newsworthy, this time from National Review.

[Free Ward Marchers]

To the best of my knowledge no such option exists. But the statue of limitations pertains only to prosecutions. An investigation could proceed regardless, but that would be pretty unusual, and there would be big questions about who would conduct this investigation and to whom they would report.

The sources for this lean in a particular direction but that seems to be a rating of newsworthiness rather than someone making something up, so excuse the use of the Examiner...

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia is actively investigating the complaint against Joe Biden brought by Tara Reade, the woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, despite her allegation being impossible to prosecute since it is past the statute of limitations.

“This is an active, ongoing investigation, and there are no further details to provide at this time,” a Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson told the Washington Examiner Tuesday regarding Reade’s case. “Cases that are handled by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Sexual Assault Unit go through a multi-review prior to being assigned a disposition. This case is progressing through the review process.”

The investigation remaining open, despite the alleged incident occurring past the statute of limitations, struck multiple experts as highly unusual.

On April 9, Reade filed an incident report with the D.C. police that said she “disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault which was committed by Subject-2 in 1993." Reade has confirmed that Subject-2 is Joe Biden, 77, who was a Delaware senator from 1973-2009 before becoming President Barack Obama's vice president.

Reade, 56, said that she filed an incident report for “safety reasons,” for the purpose of establishing a paper trail in case “something happened to me” and to show that she is serious about her allegation since it is illegal to make a false police report. Since coming forward with her allegations against Biden, she regularly receives threatening and vulgar messages, she told the Washington Examiner.

Because the incident is past the statute of limitations, she told the Washington Examiner that she expected the police to do no more than note her complaint and not investigate it. Reade told the Washington Examiner that she has no plans to sue Biden in civil court, where D.C. has removed the statute of limitations on sex crimes.

Also, weird thing caught in the net looking for clarification...Biden rejected a donation from Louis C.K.

The Biden presidential campaign announced on Wednesday that it would refund a $2,800 donation comedian Louis C.K., who has been accused of multiple instances of sexual misconduct.

The donation was made on March 4, according to Federal Election Commission records. That was one day after Biden’s sweeping Super Tuesday victories that put him on a path to defeat progressive rival Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

Again probably an issue of what was considered newsworthy, this time from National Review.

you would think after the Harvey Weinstein debacle they would extend the statute for sexual assault

[Duvniask]

What I am saying is that, let's say, there were five elections in which one candidate was off by 5% from the exit polling. Again, 0.05⁵ = 0.00003125%.

In short, I think we'd need to take a look at exit polling vs state results and do that for every single state so far.

That's not what you said originally, but okay.

Also note that multiplying probabilities together is only valid if the events are independent, and I'm quite hesitant to say that election primaries are disjoint from one another like a coin flip is, and it makes sense that the combinatorics involved would be a smidge more complex than that.

Unless there was some kind of election tampering or the polls had sampling bias, why wouldn't the probabilities be independent of each other? If they were dependent it would mean there's something that was present the first time the margin of error was exceeded that also caused the margin of error to be exceeded the second time; that is precisely indicative of a poll lacking proper randomization or election tampering.

Conveniently, CNN has all the exit polls one could want. I'd figure I'd share this data as we trudge through together on this magical journey.

Keep in mind that at least in the United States, exit polls are adjusted live (this was also the case with CNN) to match the reported election outcome. In other words, as the American Association for Public Opinion Research (see link) explains; "It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did." They do it with the intention of predicting (i.e. calling the state for who they think is going to win; typical of the 24/7 News cycle) and dissecting the results afterward.

The final adjusted results are thus dependent on the election outcome and are not particularly useful for trying to infer election tampering. I mean how would they be, they were fitted to the result, which may or may not have been fraudulent. They aren't election verification exit polls, they're media polling done for the purposes of fast reporting. I assume those who expressed concern that the margin of error was exceeded had taken the first batch of unadjusted results and used that data, not the final batch that you'll now find on the CNN website.

[Vassenor]

Has anyone actually found the formal complaint she claims to have filed back in the day? Should be something that can be FOI'd given that it's required to be recorded.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The sources for this lean in a particular direction but that seems to be a rating of newsworthiness rather than someone making something up, so excuse the use of the Examiner...


Also, weird thing caught in the net looking for clarification...Biden rejected a donation from Louis C.K.

Again probably an issue of what was considered newsworthy, this time from National Review.

you would think after the Harvey Weinstein debacle they would extend the statute for sexual assault

A bad crime doesn't mean we instantly get harsher on similar crimes. That's what we call kneejerking.

[Zurkerx]

Donald Trump set to fall back on xenophobia with re-election plan in tatters

I believe this is an opinion piece but I mean, he's already been doing that.

[Celritannia]

Donald Trump set to fall back on xenophobia with re-election plan in tatters

I believe this is an opinion piece but I mean, he's already been doing that.

He has, which why I don't understand why people want to vote for him. Breaking America into sects rather than uniting people is never a good policy.

[Vassenor]

Donald Trump set to fall back on xenophobia with re-election plan in tatters

I believe this is an opinion piece but I mean, he's already been doing that.

It's not xenophobia, it's economic anxiety.

[Pax Nerdvana]

I finally got around to mailing my registration yesterday. Now I'm trying to figure out who to vote for that isn't Trump or Biden. Trump isn't terribly competent, and I don't really like Biden.

[Celritannia]

I finally got around to mailing my registration yesterday. Now I'm trying to figure out who to vote for that isn't Trump or Biden. Trump isn't terribly competent, and I don't really like Biden.

Who else is on the voting slip out of curiosity?

[Zurkerx]

I finally got around to mailing my registration yesterday. Now I'm trying to figure out who to vote for that isn't Trump or Biden. Trump isn't terribly competent, and I don't really like Biden.

Who else is on the voting slip out of curiosity?

Well, unless Amash runs for the Libertarians, than you'll see Jacob Hornberger be their nominee. The Greens nominee is likely Howie Hawkins and Don Blankenship is likely going to be the Constitution Party's nominee.

[Telconi]

Donald Trump set to fall back on xenophobia with re-election plan in tatters

I believe this is an opinion piece but I mean, he's already been doing that.

He has, which why I don't understand why people want to vote for him. Breaking America into sects rather than uniting people is never a good policy.

America is already broken, pretending otherwise is a trash idea.

[South Odreria 2]

Jacob Hornberger = lame

[Corrian]

To both of these: in what way? I'm asking you to divorce your political leanings for a moment and consider her potential as a candidate. I believe it's objectively a good choice.

Her record includes the delightful action of locking people up for their kid's truancy, and standing against criminal justice reform, these are not good things.

Then claiming she was for criminal justice reform when she ran.