The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,417
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
@Buchan also seems to be getting predictions and probabilities mixed up.
I'm not. Approval ratings/polls are essentially surveys. Not every member of the country is surveyed when conducting these and the demographic of each one differs too, to even further muddy the waters. That's why I'm against getting giddy over these latest numbers.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
115,488
Location
Los Angeles
I'm not. Approval ratings/polls are essentially surveys. Not every member of the country is surveyed when conducting these and the demographic of each one differs too, to even further muddy the waters. That's why I'm against getting giddy over these latest numbers.
No one has suggested getting giddy. They do however suggest a trend to the downside for Trump.
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
9,218
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
Re: the discussion on polling, one of my favorite sites that does good statistical analysis had a good article on how and why the polling of the US President election was off last year. Perhaps even more intertesting was that even the futures markets were off

For most of the presidential campaign, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Trump much better odds than other polling-based models. Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.As based on our polls-only model; our polls-plus version gave Trump a similar, 28 percent chance.

By comparison, other models tracked by The New York Times put Trump’s odds at: 15 percent, 8 percent, 2 percent and less than 1 percent. And betting markets put Trump’s chances at just 18 percent at midnight on Tuesday, when Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, cast its votes.

So why did our model — using basically the same data as everyone else — show such a different result? We’ve covered this question before, but it’s interesting to do so in light of the actual election results. We think the outcome — and particularly the fact that Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote — validates important features of our approach. More importantly, it helps to explain why Trump won the presidency.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
 

kps88

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
21,703
I'm not. Approval ratings/polls are essentially surveys. Not every member of the country is surveyed when conducting these and the demographic of each one differs too, to even further muddy the waters. That's why I'm against getting giddy over these latest numbers.
Sorry, but I don't think you understand the methodology behind polls with regards to sample sizes, demographics etc. It's a proven science and can't be dismissed with rubbish like "but they didn't survey every person". You've just dismissed polls and surveys as a concept in general with that statement, which is mental.

Also don't think you understand how to read polls.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
17,144
Location
Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
No one has suggested getting giddy. They do however suggest a trend to the downside for Trump.
I guess a good benchmark would be how has the approval ratings of the last few presidents faired around a year after the election?
Gut feel most will have seen a slump as it's harder to win over those that didn't vote for you than it is to piss off some of those that did as let's be honest most politicians can't deliver on what they promised
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,417
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
Sorry, but I don't think you understand the methodology behind polls with regards to sample sizes, demographics etc. It's a proven science and can't be dismissed with rubbish like "but they didn't survey every person". You've just dismissed polls and surveys as a concept in general with that statement, which is mental.

Also don't think you understand how to read polls.
:lol:
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,417
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
I guess a good benchmark would be how has the approval ratings of the last few presidents faired around a year after the election?
Gut feel most will have seen a slump as it's harder to win over those that didn't vote for you than it is to piss off some of those that did as let's be honest most politicians can't deliver on what they promised
I tend to agree. Based on what we learned recently, you need to wait about nine years for your approval ratings to go up. It works for war criminals, after all...
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,122
I guess a good benchmark would be how has the approval ratings of the last few presidents faired around a year after the election?
Gut feel most will have seen a slump as it's harder to win over those that didn't vote for you than it is to piss off some of those that did as let's be honest most politicians can't deliver on what they promised
It varies and can obviously be massively affected by certain events: Bush's popularity for example skyrocketed in 2001 post-9/11, for example.

Unlike a lot of Presidents though Trump never had an initial upturn and started out with a fairly low approval rating. Most Presidents have a certain level of popularity when they step into office due to their freshness etc but that wasn't the case with Trump. To the contrary though...the extent to which he polarises people means he's still got a pretty dedicated base there which will make any falling approval rating gradual.
 

unchanged_lineup

Tarheel Tech Wizard
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
14,529
Location
Leaving A Breakfast On All Of Your Doorsteps
Supports
Janet jazz jazz jam
You extrapolated that from my post? Great.

I said 'so much emphasis'. Of course it can have value, but to base your entire campaign strategy (e.g. ignore visiting Wisconsin because the data suggested to) and place total faith in pre-election polls and post-election approval ratings is foolhardy.
There's a thread for this. Actually, two or three threads. You can go to the election one, the "what went wrong for Hillary" one or even the Dems one.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd stop rehashing stone cold dead topics that belong elsewhere. Thanks.

Edit: and pleeeeease don't claim that this is all somehow relevant to Trump's latest numbers. It aint. Move on.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
47,948
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
This Whitefish Energy contract smells. Very fishy to put language into the contract that forbids anyone to audit the cost and profit elements and had PREPA waive Claim to any delays in completion of the work.

Who got a kickback here? Zinke? PR Governor? PREPA?
 

matherto

ask me about our 50% off sale!
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
15,453
Location
St. Helens
This Whitefish Energy contract smells. Very fishy to put language into the contract that forbids anyone to audit the cost and profit elements and had PREPA waive Claim to any delays in completion of the work.

Who got a kickback here? Zinke? PR Governor? PREPA?
They've got links to Trump haven't they?
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Incredibly, they had TWO employees when the contract was awarded(!)
 

Organic Potatoes

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
14,413
Location
85R723R2+R6
Supports
Colorado Rapids
I guess a good benchmark would be how has the approval ratings of the last few presidents faired around a year after the election?
Gut feel most will have seen a slump as it's harder to win over those that didn't vote for you than it is to piss off some of those that did as let's be honest most politicians can't deliver on what they promised
A good benchmark is historically low numbers by every measurable standard by this point in time.
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
13,215
Location
Florida, man
For every poll you claim was correct, I can provide ten which were wildly inaccurate (state polls or otherwise). Trump was given a 1 - 8% chance of winning on practically every forecast in the country. How are those facts for you?
Ok Johnnowhite of the Liberals, provide 10 from verified sources.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
47,948
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Didnt Zinke have some dodgy personal expense report/accounting practises when he was in the services?
Not sure. He has used his SEAL career to build his political profile and has exaggerated/inflated his roles in the SEALS, and has supposedly claimed to have been awarded bronze medals for valor in combat.

His former CO wasn't too fond of him. Disclaimer: this may have been a paid for hit piece, like the Swift Boat crap.
https://themontanapost.com/2014/05/...navy-seal-career-and-defective-moral-make-up/

Admirals over Zinke nailed his ass on the travel expenses and effectively ended his career as a Naval officer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/ryan-zinke-navy-seal.html
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,480
Location
Hell on Earth
Not sure. He has used his SEAL career to build his political profile and has exaggerated/inflated his roles in the SEALS, and has supposedly claimed to have been awarded bronze medals for valor in combat.

His former CO wasn't too fond of him. Disclaimer: this may have been a paid for hit piece, like the Swift Boat crap.
https://themontanapost.com/2014/05/...navy-seal-career-and-defective-moral-make-up/

Admirals over Zinke nailed his ass on the travel expenses and effectively ended his career as a Naval officer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/ryan-zinke-navy-seal.html
I read similar reports. Have seen TV interviews of him giving his opinions as though he was some experienced operator and not the desk jockey that he was.
 

McUnited

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
744
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a football fans' forum draws out such tribalism. But still, it's quite remarkable.

Is there anything at all that Trump has done that has been good for America? (Please don't say 'the firing of xyz' because I'm sure that's beneath you and you can do so much better, surely.)
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
11,468
Location
Melbourne
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a football fans' forum draws out such tribalism. But still, it's quite remarkable.

Is there anything at all that Trump has done that has been good for America? (Please don't say 'the firing of xyz' because I'm sure that's beneath you and you can do so much better, surely.)
Pulling you out of the Paris Accord.

It fecks the world at large, especially those pesky Chinese currency manipulators and Muslims but on the whole when we are being pan-fried in the future the US will stay relatively fine and dandy (except for Miami).
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,417
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
Ok Johnnowhite of the Liberals, provide 10 from verified sources.
This Politico article outlines the thinking within the Clinton camp prior to the election: they placed an unreasonable amount of faith in data and let that dictate their campaign strategy. We'll get to why that's a preposterous plan later and why polling numbers are usually skewed.

Huffington Post tweet the day before voting, based on polling numbers, placed Clinton's chances of victory at 98%. They also claimed that Clinton would get 323 Electoral Votes based on the data.

A Princeton Election Consortium survey, again based on polls (where this entire argument started yesterday) nationwide, placed her probability of victory at 99%. This Stanford projection, again based on polls nationwide, stated Clinton had a 99% chance of victory. The New York Times Upshot, a supposed major source for accurate projections, suggested Clinton had a 91% chance of winning. Even supposed rock solid sources like Five Thirty Eight had the Electoral Vote numbers completely in reverse with Trump projected to get only 235 to Clinton's 302. This Reuters poll suggested Clinton had a ~90% chance of success and signalled something similar with Electoral Votes heavily in Clinton's favour, with the complete role-reversal on actual Election Day. CNN allowed data from internet users to suggest Clinton had a 91% chance of winning last November (admittedly not a poll per se, but an example of restrictive data being distorted to suit an agenda).

My point about demographics never being equal so the waters are always muddied in polls, intentional or otherwise, still stands. For example, CNN polls (flick to their 'Methodology' section on page 19 of the document to see the breakdown) regularly oversample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by ~1/3 compared to Republicans (in this case 32% identified as Democrat and 24% Republican).

Overall, and my point from the beginning, is that failed predictions based purely on numbers suggest the rush to exploit data may have outgrown the ability to recognise its limitations.
 
Last edited:

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,480
Location
Stamford Bridge
This Politico article outlines the thinking within the Clinton camp prior to the election: they placed an unreasonable amount of faith in data and let that dictate their campaign strategy. We'll get to why that's a preposterous plan later and why polling numbers are usually skewed.

Huffington Post tweet the day before voting, based on polling numbers, placed Clinton's chances of victory at 98%. They also claimed that Clinton would get 323 Electoral Votes based on the data.

A Princeton Election Consortium survey, again based on polls (where this entire argument started yesterday) nationwide, placed her probability of victory at 99%. This Stanford projection, again based on polls nationwide, stated Clinton had a 99% chance of victory. The New York Times Upshot, a supposed major source for accurate projections, suggested Clinton had a 91% chance of winning. Even supposed rock solid sources like Five Thirty Eight had the Electoral Vote numbers completely in reverse with Trump projected to get only 235 to Clinton's 302. This Reuters poll suggested Clinton had a ~90% chance of success and signalled something similar with Electoral Votes heavily in Clinton's favour, with the complete role-reversal on actual Election Day. CNN allowed data from internet users to suggest Clinton had a 91% chance of winning last November (admittedly not a poll per se, but an example of restrictive data being distorted to suit an agenda).

My point about demographics never being equal so the waters are always muddied in polls, intentional or otherwise, still stands. For example, CNN polls (flick to their 'Methodology' section on page 19 of the document to see the breakdown) regularly oversample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by ~1/3 compared to Republicans (in this case 32% identified as Democrat and 24% Republican).

Overall, and my point from the beginning, is that failed predictions based purely on numbers suggest the rush to exploit data may have outgrown the ability to recognise its limitations.
They could have put the odds on a Democratic victory at 99.999999% and it still doesn't preclude the possibility of a Republican win. Leicester winning at 5000-1 odds doesn't mean the odds were necessarily wrong.
 

unchanged_lineup

Tarheel Tech Wizard
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
14,529
Location
Leaving A Breakfast On All Of Your Doorsteps
Supports
Janet jazz jazz jam
This Politico article outlines the thinking within the Clinton camp prior to the election: they placed an unreasonable amount of faith in data and let that dictate their campaign strategy. We'll get to why that's a preposterous plan later and why polling numbers are usually skewed.

Huffington Post tweet the day before voting, based on polling numbers, placed Clinton's chances of victory at 98%. They also claimed that Clinton would get 323 Electoral Votes based on the data.

A Princeton Election Consortium survey, again based on polls (where this entire argument started yesterday) nationwide, placed her probability of victory at 99%. This Stanford projection, again based on polls nationwide, stated Clinton had a 99% chance of victory. The New York Times Upshot, a supposed major source for accurate projections, suggested Clinton had a 91% chance of winning. Even supposed rock solid sources like Five Thirty Eight had the Electoral Vote numbers completely in reverse with Trump projected to get only 235 to Clinton's 302. This Reuters poll suggested Clinton had a ~90% chance of success and signalled something similar with Electoral Votes heavily in Clinton's favour, with the complete role-reversal on actual Election Day. CNN allowed data from internet users to suggest Clinton had a 91% chance of winning last November (admittedly not a poll per se, but an example of restrictive data being distorted to suit an agenda).

My point about demographics never being equal so the waters are always muddied in polls, intentional or otherwise, still stands. For example, CNN polls (flick to their 'Methodology' section on page 19 of the document to see the breakdown) regularly oversample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by ~1/3 compared to Republicans (in this case 32% identified as Democrat and 24% Republican).

Overall, and my point from the beginning, is that failed predictions based purely on numbers suggest the rush to exploit data may have outgrown the ability to recognise its limitations.
Literally 3 people mentioned earlier that you don't know the difference between polls and probabilities, and then you go and do this :lol:

Edit: it goes without saying perhaps, but naturally none of what you've written here proves what you were supposed to be trying to prove

For every poll [poll, not probability. poll] you claim was correct, I can provide ten which were wildly inaccurate (state polls or otherwise) [this is what was being looked for]. Trump was given a 1 - 8% chance of winning on practically every forecast [noone is disputing these for Kentonio's reason, you're arguing with yourself on that] in the country. How are those facts for you?
 
Last edited:

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,716
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a football fans' forum draws out such tribalism. But still, it's quite remarkable.

Is there anything at all that Trump has done that has been good for America? (Please don't say 'the firing of xyz' because I'm sure that's beneath you and you can do so much better, surely.)
Nullification of a rule permitting states to conduct drug tests for unemployment compensation eligibility.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 amended the Social Security Act by permitting states to conduct drug tests for unemployment compensation eligibility if the applicant was fired for drug use or if the applicant's occupation regularly conducted drug testing. The drug tests for unemployment compensation ruleestablished which occupations fell under this umbrella. On January 30, 2017, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)introduced a joint resolution of disapproval to nullify the rule under the Congressional Review Act. The resolution passed the House on February 15, and passed the Senate on March 14. On March 31, 2017, the resolution was signed by President Trump and became law, nullifying the rule.

He did sign this, which goes against the authoritarian style of his presidency. Asking what Trump has done well is a bit like asking what Moyes has done well... After all, even Moyes did pronounce 'Manchester United' correctly...
 

RedChip

Full Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
2,032
Location
In Lee
This Politico article outlines the thinking within the Clinton camp prior to the election: they placed an unreasonable amount of faith in data and let that dictate their campaign strategy. We'll get to why that's a preposterous plan later and why polling numbers are usually skewed.

Huffington Post tweet the day before voting, based on polling numbers, placed Clinton's chances of victory at 98%. They also claimed that Clinton would get 323 Electoral Votes based on the data.

A Princeton Election Consortium survey, again based on polls (where this entire argument started yesterday) nationwide, placed her probability of victory at 99%. This Stanford projection, again based on polls nationwide, stated Clinton had a 99% chance of victory. The New York Times Upshot, a supposed major source for accurate projections, suggested Clinton had a 91% chance of winning. Even supposed rock solid sources like Five Thirty Eight had the Electoral Vote numbers completely in reverse with Trump projected to get only 235 to Clinton's 302. This Reuters poll suggested Clinton had a ~90% chance of success and signalled something similar with Electoral Votes heavily in Clinton's favour, with the complete role-reversal on actual Election Day. CNN allowed data from internet users to suggest Clinton had a 91% chance of winning last November (admittedly not a poll per se, but an example of restrictive data being distorted to suit an agenda).

My point about demographics never being equal so the waters are always muddied in polls, intentional or otherwise, still stands. For example, CNN polls (flick to their 'Methodology' section on page 19 of the document to see the breakdown) regularly oversample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by ~1/3 compared to Republicans (in this case 32% identified as Democrat and 24% Republican).

Overall, and my point from the beginning, is that failed predictions based purely on numbers suggest the rush to exploit data may have outgrown the ability to recognise its limitations.
Any statistician worth their salt will understand that surveys are rarely, if ever, without some sort of selection bias; hence, they will apply weights to account for under/over representation so that the overall results are not biased towards any of the groups.
 

DenisIrwin

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
2,337
The lowest Nixon ever reached was mid twenties.
He was dishonest. Trump is dishonest - and racist, and misogynist, and entirely self-centred, and just plain batshit-crazy. I really and truly worry about the overall mental health of the citizens of the USA. Don't get me wrong - there is much to love about our American cousins - but how they can decide upon an electoral system that narrows their choice of leader down to Trump or Hillary, allows ridiculous levels of gun crime to go virtually unchallenged, allows 200,000 children to marry in the last 15 years, well, these things and more really are cause for concern.
 
Last edited:

Zarlak

my face causes global warming
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
44,660
Location
Truth like rain don't give a feck who it falls on.
He was dishonest. Trump is dishonest - and racist, and misogynist, and entirely self-centred, and just plain batshit-crazy. I really and truly worry about the overall mental health of the citizens of the USA. Don't get me wrong - there is much to love about our American cousins - but how they can decide upon an electoral system that narrows their choice of leader down to Trump or Hillary, allows ridiculous levels of gun crime to go virtually unchallenged, allows 200,000 children to marry each year, well, these things and more really are cause for concern.
Freedom!
 

crappycraperson

"Resident cricket authority"
Scout
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
37,180
Location
Interweb
They could have put the odds on a Democratic victory at 99.999999% and it still doesn't preclude the possibility of a Republican win. Leicester winning at 5000-1 odds doesn't mean the odds were necessarily wrong.
Some of the state polls were wrong though. Michigan poll in democratic primary itself had a 20 percent swing in favour of Bernie in terms of its difference with actual result. Same goes for state specific polls in GE when it came to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Clinton was leading in polls across these states and hence why predictors of all outlets predictor her to win the electoral college too. Just saying that polls got the popular vote right is a bit of a cop out since getting so many individual states' call wrong is also a big failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.