2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Australia-New Zealand-Taiwan]

Biden is a pedophile

[Valrifell]

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.”

Polls are not predictive, it's quite that simple. They are snapshots of support at any given point in time, and we saw that as we got closer to election day Trump and Clinton closed in on each other in a few key states to the point it was within the MoE, which coupled with the high percentage of undecideds that we caught, makes it (in hindsight) relatively unsurprising that the election shaped out as it did.

The polls right before election day were pretty much right! They captured the correct level of support between the candidates within error! That is the mark of a successful measurement!

[Imperialisium]

Biden is a pedophile

Source? If not this probably won’t abide well for you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.”

But that's the thing, apart from Wisconsin the polls weren't really wrong. Pretty much everywhere else, including how the national vote numbers went, the polling was perfectly within margin of error. You can't have much better polling than that.

Admittedly yeah a bunch of the election models should be mocked (like the one that gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning) because a lot of them ignored very glaring flaws in the Clinton campaign and the background in the Rust Belt that led people like me to say Trump was going to get a narrow victory there, but again the polling was mostly solid.

[Valrifell]

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.”

But that's the thing, apart from Wisconsin the polls weren't really wrong. Pretty much everywhere else, including how the national vote numbers went, the polling was perfectly within margin of error. You can't have much better polling than that.

Admittedly yeah a bunch of the election models should be mocked (like the one that gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning) because a lot of them ignored very glaring flaws in the Clinton campaign and the background in the Rust Belt that led people like me to say Trump was going to get a narrow victory there, but again the polling was mostly solid.

Punditry was wrong, polls and aggregates were not. We can even see this in that they pretty much clocked the popular vote split. That should have been the takeaway from 2016, but for some reason it never is.

[Cordel One]

Biden is a pedophile

A senile old man for sure, but not a pedophile. There is one candidate with a long history of sexual misconduct and assault, though.

[Imperialisium]

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.”

Polls are not predictive, it's quite that simple. They are snapshots of support at any given point in time, and we saw that as we got closer to election day Trump and Clinton closed in on each other in a few key states to the point it was within the MoE, which coupled with the high percentage of undecideds that we caught, makes it (in hindsight) relatively unsurprising that the election shaped out as it did.

The polls right before election day were pretty much right! They captured the correct level of support between the candidates within error! That is the mark of a successful measurement!

My issue isn’t so much with the math as their methodology must have been flawed. Which in turn makes their math give a less accurate outcome. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MoE was actually higher than the 4.5% someone else posted here (if that percentage is accurate). But that may be predicated on what they had to work with in terms of numbers, accountable variables, and whatever formula they use.

From a forensic background stand point 4.5% MoE is extremely high. At least uncomfortably so and is pretty close to the 5% margin to be considered accurate at all.

[Imperialisium]

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.”

But that's the thing, apart from Wisconsin the polls weren't really wrong. Pretty much everywhere else, including how the national vote numbers went, the polling was perfectly within margin of error. You can't have much better polling than that.

Admittedly yeah a bunch of the election models should be mocked (like the one that gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning) because a lot of them ignored very glaring flaws in the Clinton campaign and the background in the Rust Belt that led people like me to say Trump was going to get a narrow victory there, but again the polling was mostly solid.

Hmmm I see. Wouldn’t have any spitballing of MoEs and how pollsters and/or aggregates got those figures lying around would you?

[Fartsniffage]

US media are reporting that Covid-positive President Trump has cancelled his only scheduled event on Friday as he and the first lady isolate in the White House.

The event was set to be a phone call on Covid-19 support to vulnerable older people.

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

[Thermodolia]

But that's the thing, apart from Wisconsin the polls weren't really wrong. Pretty much everywhere else, including how the national vote numbers went, the polling was perfectly within margin of error. You can't have much better polling than that.

Admittedly yeah a bunch of the election models should be mocked (like the one that gave Clinton a 99% chance of winning) because a lot of them ignored very glaring flaws in the Clinton campaign and the background in the Rust Belt that led people like me to say Trump was going to get a narrow victory there, but again the polling was mostly solid.

Hmmm I see. Wouldn’t have any spitballing of MoEs and how pollsters and/or aggregates got those figures lying around would you?

A typical MoE could be between 2.5 to 4.5

[Thermodolia]

US media are reporting that Covid-positive President Trump has cancelled his only scheduled event on Friday as he and the first lady isolate in the White House.

The event was set to be a phone call on Covid-19 support to vulnerable older people.

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

That’s not good.

[Imperialisium]

Hmmm I see. Wouldn’t have any spitballing of MoEs and how pollsters and/or aggregates got those figures lying around would you?

A typical MoE could be between 2.5 to 4.5

This makes me wonder how large their samples sizes are and their questions. 2.5 would be solid but anything above 3 makes me seriously start wondering. Then again there’s like 400 polls in the US and I doubt they’re all uniform in how they do things.

[Valrifell]

Polls are not predictive, it's quite that simple. They are snapshots of support at any given point in time, and we saw that as we got closer to election day Trump and Clinton closed in on each other in a few key states to the point it was within the MoE, which coupled with the high percentage of undecideds that we caught, makes it (in hindsight) relatively unsurprising that the election shaped out as it did.

The polls right before election day were pretty much right! They captured the correct level of support between the candidates within error! That is the mark of a successful measurement!

My issue isn’t so much with the math as their methodology must have been flawed. Which in turn makes their math give a less accurate outcome. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MoE was actually higher than the 4.5% someone else posted here (if that percentage is accurate). But that may be predicated on what they had to work with in terms of numbers, accountable variables, and whatever formula they use.

From a forensic background stand point 4.5% MoE is extremely high. At least uncomfortably so and is pretty close to the 5% margin to be considered accurate at all.

And I've already mentioned that their methodology was off in WI, due to undersampling.

Your background as a forensic scientist is irrelevant which talking about more pure forms of statistics and mathematical modeling and when what we're measuring is something entirely unrelated to forensics. The MoE in 2016 was average for political science, it's just how that works, and has been like that since the advent of modern polling science.

[Valrifell]

US media are reporting that Covid-positive President Trump has cancelled his only scheduled event on Friday as he and the first lady isolate in the White House.

The event was set to be a phone call on Covid-19 support to vulnerable older people.

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

Well, this is quite puzzling.

[Kexholm Karelia]

US media are reporting that Covid-positive President Trump has cancelled his only scheduled event on Friday as he and the first lady isolate in the White House.

The event was set to be a phone call on Covid-19 support to vulnerable older people.

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

I hope not, I am praying with my family

[Cordel One]

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

I hope not, I am praying with my family

Is it common for Icelandic people to be so invested in US politics?

[Imperialisium]

My issue isn’t so much with the math as their methodology must have been flawed. Which in turn makes their math give a less accurate outcome. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MoE was actually higher than the 4.5% someone else posted here (if that percentage is accurate). But that may be predicated on what they had to work with in terms of numbers, accountable variables, and whatever formula they use.

From a forensic background stand point 4.5% MoE is extremely high. At least uncomfortably so and is pretty close to the 5% margin to be considered accurate at all.

And I've already mentioned that their methodology was off in WI, due to undersampling.

Your background as a forensic scientist is irrelevant which talking about more pure forms of statistics and mathematical modeling and when what we're measuring is something entirely unrelated to forensics. The MoE in 2016 was average for political science, it's just how that works, and has been like that since the advent of modern polling science.

Yeah and I’m also saying their methodology was flawed.

It is relevant since I mention it on account of people making up my background for me repeatedly. Nor is how math works somehow different from field to field. A formula is a formula. 1 is still 1. What would be irrelevant is me somehow using it to gloat or invalidate someone else which is not what I’m doing. That’s why I tell people who do that that their credentials are irrelevant for the purpose of making themselves seem infallible.

“It’s just how that works,” doesn’t really assuage my concerns for accuracy.

[Zurkerx]

US media are reporting that Covid-positive President Trump has cancelled his only scheduled event on Friday as he and the first lady isolate in the White House.

The event was set to be a phone call on Covid-19 support to vulnerable older people.

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

That's tough to say but given he's 74, clinically obese, and has a common form of heart disease, I can understand why he's concern. After all, it does start out with mild symptoms but it can explode into something serious quickly. A prime example of that is Boris Johnson.

[San Lumen]

Perhaps his symptoms aren't so minor?

I hope not, I am praying with my family

I pray for him too. I dislike the man but I do not wish him poor health.

[Imperialisium]

I hope not, I am praying with my family

I pray for him too. I dislike the man but I do not wish him poor health.

You’re too good for NSG.

[Shrillland]

I hope not, I am praying with my family

Is it common for Icelandic people to be so invested in US politics?

Is is common for US people to be so involved in politics of any nation besides their own, by the same token? Not really, but this is NSG.

[Fartsniffage]

I hope not, I am praying with my family

I pray for him too. I dislike the man but I do not wish him poor health.

I want the fucker in rude health for the many days in courtrooms and then jail that await him after he loses to Biden. May he live to be 100 and spend all that time wearing orange.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Hmmm I see. Wouldn’t have any spitballing of MoEs and how pollsters and/or aggregates got those figures lying around would you?

Better: here's a long list of current polls. If you click on any of the polls linked in the first column, it'll take you to all the polls for that state. For example, Florida, where we see that most MoEs are 3.5-4.5, but St. Pete Polls, whoever they are, likes big samples, and has it down to 1.8.

They also have 2016 polling still available, if you really wanted the data from last time. (WI listed in "leans Clinton" for example).

[Imperialisium]

Hmmm I see. Wouldn’t have any spitballing of MoEs and how pollsters and/or aggregates got those figures lying around would you?

Better: here's a long list of current polls. If you click on any of the polls linked in the first column, it'll take you to all the polls for that state. For example, Florida, where we see that most MoEs are 3.5-4.5, but St. Pete Polls, whoever they are, likes big samples, and has it down to 1.8.

They also have 2016 polling still available, if you really wanted the data from last time. (WI listed in "leans Clinton" for example).

Excellent, thank you

[Valrifell]

And I've already mentioned that their methodology was off in WI, due to undersampling.

Your background as a forensic scientist is irrelevant which talking about more pure forms of statistics and mathematical modeling and when what we're measuring is something entirely unrelated to forensics. The MoE in 2016 was average for political science, it's just how that works, and has been like that since the advent of modern polling science.

Yeah and I’m also saying their methodology was flawed.

Nor is how math works somehow different from field to field.

Statistics change depending on what you're measuring, most relevantly if the quantity is discrete or continuous. It's the difference between a Gaussian and Poisson distribution, different fields have different measurements that require different math applied to it. I can't imagine the mathematics required for forensics will be equally applicable to physics, because that wouldn't make much sense. They're concerned with different things.

You can not conclusively say they're methodology was flawed because the error doesn't line up with what would be expected for forensics, because you're concerned about entirely different things.