Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

Post Reply
bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by bennyonesix » Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:58 pm

dead man walking wrote:
bennyonesix wrote:
dead man walking wrote:of course i should have known that any positive news during the obama years is mere illusion.

as for the wall street journal, it's problems are no doubt typical of print media and unrelated to the jobs and wages report. in contrast, i believe i recently saw that the times has posted strong earnings.
New York Times Co. said its third-quarter earnings fell sharply as print advertising dropped 19%, the latest publisher to signal that spending on newspaper ads is drying up even further.

Publishers have made plans to further trim their staffs and shift resources to more digital initiatives as advertising demand is forecast to remain weak. The New York Times said its overall advertising revenue decreased 7.7% in the third quarter, and the company expects a similar decline for the fourth quarter. Digital advertising sales, meanwhile, grew 21%, mostly on growth in its mobile platform.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-ti ... 1478092100
it was the digital performance that caught my eye:
Digital advertising revenue, however, which now represents 36 percent of the company’s advertising revenue, increased 21 percent in the quarter, to $44 million, a welcome relief for the company after a decline in digital advertising last quarter. The Times also added 116,000 net digital-only subscriptions for news products during the quarter, bringing its total to 1.3 million. Including crossword product subscriptions, it has about 1.6 million digital-only subscribers.
Overall, the Times reported a profit of $406,000 for the quarter, or break-even on a per-share basis, down sharply from $9.4 million, or 6 cents a share, a year earlier. Excluding restructuring-related costs and other items, per-share earnings from continuing operations fell to 6 cents from 9 cents. Revenue decreased 1% to $363.5 million.
I reckon you could argue they turned some kind of corner, but one less than horrible quarter seems little evidence. And I am not a NYT hater. We need actual journalism.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by dead man walking » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:46 am

do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.

you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.

http://election.princeton.edu
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by bennyonesix » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:43 am

dead man walking wrote:do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.

you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.

http://election.princeton.edu
He is a poll aggregator and simulation runner. And his electoral college projection is far and away the most bullish for Clinton. Not only that, but he has the fewest leaning and battleground states. See here for his take as to sure thing vs leaning states:


http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/03 ... B03I9kpDMJ

Here is his map with all the others

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-f ... redictions

So, in 99% of his sims, clinton wins. If he is right, he deserves to crow because he is waaaaay out there. As you see in the first link, most all the estimators have it very very close. In the sense that there are a lot of states that could go either way. This guy claims to be able to tell the outcome of a lot more races.

What can one say? He is from Princeton and out on a limb? He isn't collecting his own data just like Silver. And Silver's system is close to a tossup.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by bennyonesix » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:56 am

Here is the article he posts as explanation of his methods. Takes you to a download

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/wsj_2 ... llcalc.pdf

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21106
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:22 am

I disagree on the Trump win. I think HRC will take it and pretty handily.

Even around here, in Texas, there are lot of folks advocating HRC, not Trump.

Now, if Trump wins, I think it'll be a goofy 4 years, I don't think it will be apocalyptic.

bennyonesix
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2710
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by bennyonesix » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:18 am

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:I disagree on the Trump win. I think HRC will take it and pretty handily.

Even around here, in Texas, there are lot of folks advocating HRC, not Trump.

Now, if Trump wins, I think it'll be a goofy 4 years, I don't think it will be apocalyptic.
I think you have an outlier experience. I have not seen a single state poll where Hillarys enthusiasm comes close to Trumps. In fact, in PA she's running at about half in the recent ones. Which points out, to me, the strange argument for Hillary support: they don't like her, they don't go see her, they think she is shady as hell but she will outperform BO because???? She is Bill w/o the charm and he never cracked 50% and fielded serious 3rd party candidates. And Hispanic data is whacked. Anywhere from 65% to 16% with most at high 20's which js way under BO. And she ain't getting blacks. They hate her. But we'll see. I"m confident in my prediction. But it does require a non 50/50 split in undecideds and dem crossover...

And of course I agree the apocalypse is stupid. Trump is isolationist. So the argument is fewer wars like Iraq and Syria and Libya equals more danger. Absurd. And the economy is crashing anyway as soon as they raise rates so wtf?

milosz
Top
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by milosz » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:24 am

What, specifically was the wrongdoing with the media that rises to the level of rendering someone unfit for office?

"They all do it, 'where do you draw the line'?" Where are you drawing the line? What's the fucking difference between now and ever, aside from Hillary's got a vagina? Who were you supporting that was different? (Again, if you actually voted for Johnson or Stein or wrote-in Cthulhu or Ludwig von Mises, you can have a pass.)

What's disgusting about Hillary is what's disgusting about everyone with a chance to be President. A coziness with great wealth and a thirst for power - the fundamental issue of 'anyone seeking to be President should not be.'

Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption? Bernie? Sure, whether you like his ideas or not, it's hard to cast him in with the rest - but Bernie was never a Democrat before and had roughly the same real odds of ascending to the White House as me. No one who doesn't own a copy of the People's History would even know his name if he didn't live in a tiny, homogenous state to start with.

If we just want to burn the whole thing down, I'm game - I'd prefer that we dissolve into 5-6 separate nation-states, but if we're determined to keep this sham up until the Potable Water Wars of 2060, abolish the Senate and the Electoral College (distortions of vote-value being a fundamental error in a democracy), move to a parliamentary system with IRV and publicly fund elections like the rest of the civilized world.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by dead man walking » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:02 pm

bennyonesix wrote:
dead man walking wrote:do any of you pay attention to sam wang's analysis of the polls? he's a princeton science prof with his own meta-analysis of state polls. i think his record is up there with nate silver's. he's got clinton with a 98% probability of winning. he says he'll eat a bug if she loses, but hey, he's chinese, and they eat anything.

you'd have to read his stuff to understand how he gets his results cuz i can't explain it.

http://election.princeton.edu
He is a poll aggregator and simulation runner. And his electoral college projection is far and away the most bullish for Clinton. Not only that, but he has the fewest leaning and battleground states. See here for his take as to sure thing vs leaning states:


http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/11/03 ... B03I9kpDMJ

Here is his map with all the others

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-f ... redictions

So, in 99% of his sims, clinton wins. If he is right, he deserves to crow because he is waaaaay out there. As you see in the first link, most all the estimators have it very very close. In the sense that there are a lot of states that could go either way. This guy claims to be able to tell the outcome of a lot more races.

What can one say? He is from Princeton and out on a limb? He isn't collecting his own data just like Silver. And Silver's system is close to a tossup.
two observations:

silver has it 2 to 1 for clinton. how is that a toss-up?

wang's aggregation model has been right in the past. so what might he know that the other guys don't? something about "median based probability estimating," i think, whatever that is.

the press loves shit about "battleground states," but the national polls haven't moved significantly for a long time. sure they've moved, but not signicantly. imagine if all the nytimes and fox could report is "trump says more nonsense, but the race is over." or "clinton still looks dumpy in a pant suit, but smart, determined lady you don't like is gonna win."

that's the story. i just saved you the price of a subscription to your favorite newspaper, assuming you have one.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by TerryB » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:46 pm

milosz wrote: Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by dead man walking » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:29 pm

according to the huffington post, the fbi is a sister organization to igx:

ROGUE FBI AGENTS MEDDLING IN ELECTION
WHITE GUYS RUN AMOK
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by nafod » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:55 pm

TerryB wrote:...because he loves America?
*spew*

You know he wants to rename it Trumpica
Don’t believe everything you think.

Thud
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Keep Out

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Thud » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:12 pm

TerryB wrote:
milosz wrote: Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
Nice one.

So it's a fair assumption that the king of debt would not be beholden to financial interests?
Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by dead man walking » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:24 pm

TerryB wrote:
milosz wrote: Who was this magical major party candidate who represented less corruption?
How about the guy who isn't a lifelong politician, who largely self-funded his campaign (eschewing corporate and foreign money), who isn't up for sale, and who ran for President at tremendous risk to himself, his family, and his brand/business, because he loves America?
largely self-funded?

another of the donald's lies (but you're a cute little troll terry) :
Trump has boasted about self-funding his campaign, but has only contributed about $56 million to his own cause. The bulk of his campaign money has come from the RNC ($284.6 million) and two joint fundraising committees: Trump Make America Great Again Committee ($193.9 million) and Trump Victory ($97.6 million).

Additionally, Trump has received millions from six super-PACs: Rebuilding America Now ($20.3 million), Great America PAC ($15.2 million), Make America Number 1 ($5.2 million), Save America from Its Government ($2 million), Future45 ($13.7 million), and Reform America Now ($2 million).

The top five individual donors to Donald Trump's campaign are:

Donald Trump, $56.1 million
Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, $10.5 million
Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, $7 million
Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, $6.2 million
Hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer and his family, $5.8 million
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

The Ginger Beard Man
Sgt. Major
Posts: 4258
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: 4th largest city in America

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by The Ginger Beard Man » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:39 pm

nafod wrote:
TerryB wrote:...because he loves America?
*spew*

You know he wants to rename it Trumpica
Lol. Yeah, you lost me at that last bit.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Disengage from the outcome and do work.
Jezzy Bell wrote:Use a fucking barbell, pansy.

TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by TerryB » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:33 pm

dead man walking wrote: largely self-funded?

another of the donald's lies (but you're a cute little troll terry) :
Trump has boasted about self-funding his campaign, but has only contributed about $56 million to his own cause. The bulk of his campaign money has come from the RNC ($284.6 million) and two joint fundraising committees: Trump Make America Great Again Committee ($193.9 million) and Trump Victory ($97.6 million).

Additionally, Trump has received millions from six super-PACs: Rebuilding America Now ($20.3 million), Great America PAC ($15.2 million), Make America Number 1 ($5.2 million), Save America from Its Government ($2 million), Future45 ($13.7 million), and Reform America Now ($2 million).

The top five individual donors to Donald Trump's campaign are:

Donald Trump, $56.1 million
Casino Magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, $10.5 million
Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus, $7 million
Former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, $6.2 million
Hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer and his family, $5.8 million
Was that during the primaries, during the general, or both?

And LOL at complaining a businessman didn't pay for ALL of his campaign when you're supporting someone who hasn't met a PAC or foreign donor she didn't love and has spent years building a war chest for this moment. That damn Trump!
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by dead man walking » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:37 pm

i wasn't "complaining," child, simply pointing out your false statement--and trump's.

he hasn't put in as much of his money as he promised--probably because he knows better than to throw good money after bad. it's the only example of trump's good judgment one could point to.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Herv100 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:15 pm

LOL. Maid printing out classified emails.
Undisclosed payment from Qatar.
FBI agents' wife paid hundreds of thousands.
Quid pro quo offer from DOJ.

These people are crooked as a barrel of snakes
Image

Thud
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Keep Out

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Thud » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:02 am

He's fucking winning. I can't believe this.
Image

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:09 am

Thud wrote:He's fucking winning. I can't believe this.
Seems a lot like the 8th inning in game 7 last week.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

Thud
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Keep Out

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Thud » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:14 am

wish i pulled my money out of the stock market. we going down
Image

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by buckethead » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:42 am

I'm calling right now. The shitbag wins

User avatar
buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6631
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by buckethead » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:42 pm

buckethead wrote:I'm calling right now. The shitbag wins
Told you

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7936
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by powerlifter54 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:24 pm

When someone makes claims based on "science", check their math. A lot of the intelligentsia look like complete fools after last night.


But the outcome was getting to watch and enjoy the looks on the faces of the MSNBC crew. I thought Steve Schmidt and Rachel Maddow were about a great hotel room away from wrapping each other in starched cotton and ritually disemboweling themselves, with Nicole Wallace acting as kaishakunin.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

User avatar
Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Pinky » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:47 pm

powerlifter54 wrote:When someone makes claims based on "science", check their math. A lot of the intelligentsia look like complete fools after last night.
This is especially true of Sam Wang, Ryan Grim and the other dumbasses who were arguing that Clinton had a 99% chance of winning, and accusing anyone who suggested polling results contain error of trying to put their thumb on the scale. While any forecasted election probability should be taken with at least a grain of salt, pretending that you can add up a bunch of polls and be 99% sure of the outcome is just stupid.

This is from a masturbatory piece in Wired:
There’s a new king of the presidential election data mountain. His name is Sam Wang, Ph.D....

When the smoke clears on Tuesday—and it will clear—what will emerge is Wang and his Princeton Election Consortium website and calculations (which have been used, in part, to drive some of the election poll conclusions at The New York Times’ Upshot blog and The Huffington Post’s election site)....

This year, Wang called the election at 8:55 PM on October 18. He promised to eat more than just his hat if Clinton loses: “It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug,”
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."

User avatar
Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: Presidential Election 2016 (was "Debates")

Post by Yes I Have Balls » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:55 pm

Herv100 wrote:LOL. Maid printing out classified emails.
Undisclosed payment from Qatar.
FBI agents' wife paid hundreds of thousands.
Quid pro quo offer from DOJ.

These people are crooked as a barrel of snakes
One of the best things about the shit you point out is it clearly self-identifies you as a certain type of person that gets their information from a very small handful of websites. Further, it proves you don't have an ounce of intellectual curiosity to Google these "facts" to see if they are actually true before practically having them tattooed on your arm.

Thanks for all you do.

Post Reply