posted by CenterBHSFan

Why are republicans and democrats still betting the farm on polls? After this past presidential election, I would have thought that people would automatically disregard polls because they are no longer a reasonably good yardstick.

Sigh. This narrative is so annoying. 

If you look at the polls from the 2016 election and factor in the margin or error, the polls did a pretty good job at forecasting the election. The national polls had Clinton slightly ahead, within the margin or error, and that ended up being the case. The polls in Wisc,. Penn, and Ohio were all over the map, but the aggregate had Trump well within the margin of error of winning, which was what happened. Five thirty eight has beat this dead horse many times. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968.

I would also add, with all the special elections over the past year, the polls have done a pretty good job at forecasting the results, if you factor in the margin or error like any good stats person should...

Nate Silver was predicting, according to polls prior to Nov.8, that Clinton had a 79-80% chance of winning. That's a really good lecture coming from him about "revisionist history", is it not? He was guilty of making some of the same errors that he accuses others of doing.

So give some margin of error and the predictions from HIM were still way off.

*Edit to add*
Silver also stated that Trump had a 2% chance of winning the republican nomination. 

~L~O~L~

posted by CenterBHSFan

Nate Silver was predicting, according to polls prior to Nov.8, that Clinton had a 79-80% chance of winning. That's a really good lecture coming from him about "revisionist history", is it not? He was guilty of making some of the same errors that he accuses others of doing.

So give some margin of error and the predictions from HIM were still way off.

 

Sure, but again if you factor in the national poll, which had Clinton ahead, by a few points, they were correct. She did win the popular vote by a few points. Trump also won those midwest states, but they all went into his favor, within the margin of error. He pretty much ran the table in all the close states within the margin of error, a highly unprobable thing. But, he did it. 

You are mixing the polls with the probability of the Clinton win. The polls were fine, on par with 2012, people's interpretation of the polls were the problem. 

I think it is foolish to discount the polls moving forward. They have been pretty spot on the last year or so with all the special elections and the state elections in VA. 

posted by QuakerOats

There are indeed some decisions that remain under the purview of the president, no matter the overreach of liberal judges wishing to legislate and administrate from the bench. 

Well of course there are some decisions that are the responsibility of the President, but that doesn't necessarily mean the President has carte blanche, even in those circumstances.
 

posted by QuakerOats

We did not and do not have free global markets; I think that is the premise you are missing.  Obviously if we did we would not need intervention.  However, the government already inserted itself into the marketplace with asinine trade agreements, so now it is only the government who can unwind the agreements, distortions, and unair trade they created.  After that occurs they can step aside and allow markets to function on a level playing field.  

Who said anything about global markets?  Our government is responsible for not getting in the way of its own people conducting business, full stop.

And withdrawing from an agreement doesn't, and didn't, require manufacturing an undue burden on our own businesses through the notion that we might implement tariffs.  That's not "playing hardball," or "leveling the playing field," or whatever other bullshit euphemism has been used to describe it.  It's additional burden on American businesses that manifests itself in much the same way sales taxes do.  It just exists on top of other such burdens.

I know what you're trying to say.  It just doesn't work.  Again, it's like saying we need to enforce more rules to make people more free.  The enforcement of more rules does not, and cannot, make for a more free people, just like additional financial burdens on American businesses cannot bring about a more free market.  That's not how the "free" part in "free market" works.
 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Sure, but again if you factor in the national poll, which had Clinton ahead, by a few points, they were correct. She did win the popular vote by a few points. Trump also won those midwest states, but they all went into his favor, within the margin of error. He pretty much ran the table in all the close states within the margin of error, a highly unprobable thing. But, he did it. 

You are mixing the polls with the probability of the Clinton win. The polls were fine, on par with 2012, people's interpretation of the polls were the problem. 

I think it is foolish to discount the polls moving forward. They have been pretty spot on the last year or so with all the special elections and the state elections in VA. 

Perhaps it would be fair to say that polls are helpful as guidelines, but we ought to temper how confident we are in their predictions.  Granted, some do this already, but I'd wager a five-minute conversation with the average voter would show that we could probably do a better job at it as a whole.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that polls are helpful as guidelines, but we ought to temper how confident we are in their predictions.  Granted, some do this already, but I'd wager a five-minute conversation with the average voter would show that we could probably do a better job at it as a whole.

 

Completely agree. They are just data points to use and not absolute. I think this is the point 538 is trying to make on their site and articles  Polls are not the end all be all, but they are also not to be totally dismissed as fake and wrong either. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Completely agree. They are just data points to use and not absolute. I think this is the point 538 is trying to make on their site and articles  Polls are not the end all be all, but they are also not to be totally dismissed as fake and wrong either. 

For some reason dice are coming up as an analogy.  In craps, for example, the odds of rolling a two or twelve are 2.78% for each.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, though.  If polls give us odds, it doesn't mean that something with slim odds can't happen.

posted by O-Trap

If polls give us odds, it doesn't mean that something with slim odds can't happen.

And Nate Silver's 80% prediction or whatever, was taking the margin of error into account.  The fact that Trump didn't just squeak out an unlikely win but took 304 electoral votes DOES suggest the polls were outside their margin of error.

If you dug into the data in 2012, they were horribly wrong on Independents, something like at least 5-6 pts.

Or maybe they should just call it the "Facebook effect" 

posted by gut

And Nate Silver's 80% prediction or whatever, was taking the margin of error into account.  The fact that Trump didn't just squeak out an unlikely win but took 304 electoral votes DOES suggest the polls were outside their margin of error.

If you dug into the data in 2012, they were horribly wrong on Independents, something like at least 5-6 pts.

 

Or maybe they should just call it the "Facebook effect" 

Russia, Russia, Russia

I know what you're trying to say.  It just doesn't work.  Again, it's like saying we need to enforce more rules to make people more free.  The enforcement of more rules does not, and cannot, make for a more free people, just like additional financial burdens on American businesses cannot bring about a more free market.  That's not how the "free" part in "free market" works.

Actually I don't think you do.  Our government engulfed us in horrible global trade deals that crushed our mfg base.  To get out of those trade deals and begin the process of making markets free, open, and fair, the government has to be involved, temporarily, in unwinding those (its) deals.  The current temporary imposition of tariffs etc. are shots over the bow and negotiating tactics to get to that end, and to also make it clear that currency manipulation and theft of intellectual property and trade secrets are not going to be tolerated.  The 40% reduction in federal tax rates, along with these current measures, will ultimately lead to fair, open competition, devoid of government intrusion and distortion.  

posted by gut

And Nate Silver's 80% prediction or whatever, was taking the margin of error into account.  The fact that Trump didn't just squeak out an unlikely win but took 304 electoral votes DOES suggest the polls were outside their margin of error.

If you dug into the data in 2012, they were horribly wrong on Independents, something like at least 5-6 pts.

 

Or maybe they should just call it the "Facebook effect" 

Eh, electoral votes aren't the best indicator of whether or not an election is close.  You know as well as I do that the popular vote USUALLY reflects how the election plays out pretty well.  Trump took all the electoral votes from a lot of close states, so while he got all the votes from those states, the states themselves were narrow wins.  The normal playing out of such a close popular vote would result in a closer electoral vote margin as well.

It's like a basketball team that manages to win a large portion of their games, despite their point margin being a couple points.

points : wins :: votes : electoral votes

It's unlikely, but it happens.  It's more likely that a team with an average score so close to that of their average opponent score would have a winning record near .500, but there's nothing preventing a team with such a close margin running the table entirely.
 

posted by QuakerOats

Our government engulfed us in horrible global trade deals that crushed our mfg base.

You don't need to keep belaboring this point.  We already agree on this.  Let's try to whittle down the actual point of contention.
 

posted by QuakerOats

To get out of those trade deals and begin the process of making markets free, open, and fair, the government has to be involved, temporarily, in unwinding those (its) deals.

Insomuch as the government has to act in removing itself from the equation, yes.  Or, rather, it has to be involved, temporarily, in removing itself from those deals.
 

posted by QuakerOats

The current temporary imposition of tariffs etc. are shots over the bow and negotiating tactics to get to that end, and to also make it clear that currency manipulation and theft of intellectual property and trade secrets are not going to be tolerated.

Okay, here we are.

First, telling another country, "Hey, I don't care if I have to fuck over some of our own people to do it, I'm gonna make trade difficult between you and I," is not a 'shot over the bow'.  Moreover, it isn't necessary for undoing the trade deal, and is, therefore, frivolous at best.  Too, it is still threatening to make the market even less free than it currently is.

Besides that, it's not the job of the US to force other governments to allow their citizens to also enjoy the advantages of a free market.  All the US would have to do would be to withdraw from the trade agreement.  They don't need to renegotiate it or "untangle" it like some Gordian knot.

If their government manipulates currency and/or doesn't honor intellectual property laws, their people will be the ones who ultimately suffer for it.

The only reason a person would think a free market needs such propping up and enforcement would be if they didn't believe that a free market is viable enough to work itself out and stand independent of non-authoritative influences that don't function the same way.  If we had a free market, but China didn't, that'd be fine.  We'd be better off than they would.

We don't need them to abide by the same rules, and we're a sovereign state, so we don't need their permission to abide by our own.  If we're trying to "negotiate" something, it's not a free market.  Free markets aren't the sorts of things that result from negotiations.
 

The 40% reduction in federal tax rates, along with these current measures, will ultimately lead to fair, open competition, devoid of government intrusion and distortion.  

A reduction in taxes is a good thing (though without comparable spending cuts, it's pointless ... people will have more of their less-valuable money).  However, tariffs ... or even the threat of tariffs ... don't lessen "government intrusion and distortion."  They are the definition of "government intrusion and distortion."

If you disagree with this, please use specific examples of how tariffs, or the threat of tariffs, make us somehow more able to withdraw from a bad trade deal.

posted by O-Trap

Eh, electoral votes aren't the best indicator of whether or not an election is close.  You know as well as I do that the popular vote USUALLY reflects how the election plays out pretty well.  Trump took all the electoral votes from a lot of close states, so while he got all the votes from those states, the states themselves were narrow wins. 

You're not understanding the point.

Silver's "20% chance" is a probabilistic calculation based on margin of error and all the possible paths to victory.  Some specific combination of 8 of 11 states or whatever, for example.  But when you get, say, all 11 of those states the odds become much much much smaller.  Silver knows this, and is being disingenuous when he says Trump's victory is within the margin of error when it's really not.  Winning 12 of 12 coin flips is improbable, not impossible....but to say that's within your model's parameters is basically calling your model garbage as it fails to weed out even the improbable.

And, as you know, forecasting or predicting the popular vote total really tells us nothing about the electoral result.  So, again, to hang one's hat on the popular vote is disingenuous because that's not what those polls were attempting to predict.

posted by gut

You're not understanding the point.

Silver's "20% chance" is a probabilistic calculation based on margin of error and all the possible paths to victory.  Some specific combination of 8 of 11 states or whatever, for example.  But when you get, say, all 11 of those states the odds become much much much smaller.  Silver knows this, and is being disingenuous when he says Trump's victory is within the margin of error when it's really not.  Winning 12 of 12 coin flips is improbable, not impossible....but to say that's within your model's parameters is basically calling your model garbage as it fails to weed out even the improbable.

And, as you know, forecasting or predicting the popular vote total really tells us nothing about the electoral result.  So, again, to hang one's hat on the popular vote is disingenuous because that's not what those polls were attempting to predict.

Why should a model weed out the improbable?  That would functionally be treating the improbably as impossible.  I've got no qualm with a predictive model that merely gives me odds of the relevant possibilities, regardless of how improbable they are.

Now, if you're suggesting that they didn't regard that as a relevant possibility, then sure, Silver's model wouldn't have had an adequate scope, and I'd agree he's a liar.  I'll concede I've not really looked at any of the election's predictive models since maybe a couple weeks after the election, so I'm completely willing to concede that this might have been the case.  I hardly have any skin in his game.

We just weathered (barely) an 8 year Marxist policy agenda, so dealing with a few trade skirmishes that ultimately lead to true free and fair trade, more and better jobs, and the contraction of government intervention and distortion, will not be a big deal. 

posted by QuakerOats

We just weathered (barely) an 8 year Marxist policy agenda, so dealing with a few trade skirmishes that ultimately lead to true free and fair trade, more and better jobs, and the contraction of government intervention and distortion, will not be a big deal. 

You'll hear no argument from me on the economic problem of Obama's presidency.  However, again I have to ask:

HOW will these "trade skirmishes," which will hurt our individual private businesses, "lead to true free and fair trade [...] and the contraction of government intervention and distortion?"

If anything, after the last eight years, I would hope Republicans would take a more zero-tolerance policy on federal meddling in the market.

But then, that would require being critical of the one most of them voted for ...

posted by O-Trap

Why should a model weed out the improbable?  

Maybe I didn't word it very well.  If the improbable is within your margin of error, then you aren't modeling anything but simply describing a random normal distribution.

Typically you'd say you expect 95% or 99% of the outcomes to fall within your margin of error.  And the case here is I don't believe it did.   That was my point.  Individual state results may have been within the margin of errors, but then to have 12 of 12 fall on the edge of your confidence intervals is, as a group, not something within your model's overall margin of error (which as a group should be LOWER than any individual state).

Yeah, sure, your model didn't fail, we just happened to observe the 1 in 10,000 event.  Your model's still good.

Silver is blowing it out his ass because if people stop paying attention to this, then he's pretty much out of a job.  Destined to become the Mel Kiper of polling.

Trump sending troops to border.  That is awesome.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

E. Work with Mexico and Central America to determine how to reallocate those migrants in other central and south American counties. Also, start a regional dialogue that cuts to the root of the problem on why there is so many migrants and addresses the failed states in central South America. As the leader of the free world, the U.S. needs to work to address the problem in its own back yard. 

Shithole countries.

posted by O-Trap

No, he didn't run roughshod over the judicial branch.  He was unable to do so, per the law of the land.

The problem, however, was not that he disagreed with their decisions.  He disagreed with their ability to make that decision.

If the executive branch is coequal he is able to do so.  That is the law of the land.  The SCOTUS does not per the law of the land have sole power to interpret the constitution and impose it on the other branches.  The executive can tell the judicial to pound sand and they can do nothing about it.  Only the legislative branch has the power to impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches.  Any challenge ultimately falls on which side the legislative falls specifically the house as they are the branch closest to the will of the people granted the power of impeachment.

He is unable to do so because the executive fears the legislative will side with the judicial.  The legislative and executive have submitted themselves to the judiciary since nearly the founding on constitutional matters.  The judiciary is no less able to trample the constitution than the legislative or executive.

I agree the judicial as a coequal branch has the power to rule as they see fit under the law.

posted by gut

Maybe I didn't word it very well.  If the improbable is within your margin of error, then you aren't modeling anything but simply describing a random normal distribution.

Typically you'd say you expect 95% or 99% of the outcomes to fall within your margin of error.  And the case here is I don't believe it did.   That was my point.  Individual state results may have been within the margin of errors, but then to have 12 of 12 fall on the edge of your confidence intervals is, as a group, not something within your model's overall margin of error (which as a group should be LOWER than any individual state).

Yeah, sure, your model didn't fail, we just happened to observe the 1 in 10,000 event.  Your model's still good.

Silver is blowing it out his ass because if people stop paying attention to this, then he's pretty much out of a job.  Destined to become the Mel Kiper of polling.

I suppose I can see that, since he's one to write big checks with his mouth (or keyboard, since we're in the digital age).  I can still see value in merely establishing the actual odds of things like that, which wouldn't exclude improbable possibilities, but which would just show how unlikely they are to happen.  But yeah, I suppose that if you feel the need to defend your model, your model was more assertive and concluded than that.  I concede.
 

posted by Spock

Trump sending troops to border.  That is awesome.

Per someone in the military with whom I spoke today, it's not.  Allegedly, there's trouble down there aside from the norm.
 

posted by majorspark

If the executive branch is coequal he is able to do so.  That is the law of the land.  The SCOTUS does not per the law of the land have sole power to interpret the constitution and impose it on the other branches.  The executive can tell the judicial to pound sand and they can do nothing about it.  Only the legislative branch has the power to impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches.  Any challenge ultimately falls on which side the legislative falls specifically the house as they are the branch closest to the will of the people granted the power of impeachment.

He is unable to do so because the executive fears the legislative will side with the judicial.  The legislative and executive have submitted themselves to the judiciary since nearly the founding on constitutional matters.  The judiciary is no less able to trample the constitution than the legislative or executive.

I agree the judicial as a coequal branch has the power to rule as they see fit under the law.

Naturally, the SCOTUS doesn't have the autonomy that would come from being able to impose on the other branches without the ability of the other branches to impose on the SCOTUS as well.  That would effectively be an oligarchy.

But it IS the SCOTUS's role to interpret constitutional law, is it not?

Also, I must misunderstand what you're meaning when you say, "The executive can tell the judicial to pound sand and they can do nothing about it."  Were that true, the relationship between the two would not be that of co-equals.  It would be that of a hierarchy, with the Executive Branch being above the Judiciary Branch.  Unless you mean something different than how I'm reading that, which is certainly possible.  It is late.

51%

(sorry for the diatribe)

posted by O-Trap

Per someone in the military with whom I spoke today, it's not.  Allegedly, there's trouble down there aside from the norm.
 

Such as? 

posted by QuakerOats

51%

 

 

(sorry for the diatribe)

51% of what?

refuses to acknowledge what smacks him in the fuckin face

posted by iclfan2

Such as? 

I don't know specifics, and he wouldn't mention them, but he did say that he and everyone stationed where he is is prohibited from traveling south of the border altogether, even during time off.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trudeau-sees-high-chance-nafta-deal-us-mexico-144446247.html

Change we can [really] believe in ...

posted by O-Trap

But it IS the SCOTUS's role to interpret constitutional law, is it not?
 

Yes equally along with the other two branches. 

The role of the SCOTUS is to be the supreme adjudicator of disputes that arise within the Union.  The role of the Legislative branch is legislate laws governing the Union.  The role of the Executive branch is to execute those laws.  All three branches interpret the constitution as they see fit to justify whatever decision they make.  History shows all three have been right and all three have been wrong.  The founders did not intend for the interpretation to be the sole responsibility of only one branch but to be equally divided with avenues to deal with the reckless.