New Study shows American public's thoughts on mainstream news after the election. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51637847]If one reads the 538 blog rather than just looking at the percentages for hillary vs trump, their explanations were pretty damn solid and fair throughout without requiring any statistics knowledge.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/"]and they specifically made a blog post about an electoral college split getting more and more likely, giving it like a 30% chance of happening in their forecast and basically explaining how Trump won.[/URL] if anything 538's model has been completely vindicated now

Their state by state chances were just ridiculous on quite a few states. I respect the work that goes into, but people just plainly won't focus on 538 as much after this election.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637908]Their state by state chances were just ridiculous on quite a few states. I respect the work that goes into, but people just plainly won't focus on 538 as much after this election.[/QUOTE] If they do it's because people have a huge tendency to interpret statistics wrong. I'm pretty sure by the time the next presidential election comes around people will want to know what they have to say.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637908]Their state by state chances were just ridiculous on quite a few states. I respect the work that goes into, but people just plainly won't focus on 538 as much after this election.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-blue-state-polling-abyss/"]they also specifically made a blog post about the lack of good state-level polls, which in hindsight was particularly in states she lost[/URL] idk why i remember all these articles

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637908]Their state by state chances were just ridiculous on quite a few states. I respect the work that goes into, but people just plainly won't focus on 538 as much after this election.[/QUOTE] Can you do give any specifics?

[QUOTE=Cone;51637937][URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-blue-state-polling-abyss/"]they also specifically made a blog post about the lack of good state-level polls, which in hindsight was particularly in states she lost[/URL] idk why i remember all these articles[/QUOTE] Christ 538 keeps getting better and better lmao

[QUOTE=Cone;51637937][URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-blue-state-polling-abyss/"]they also specifically made a blog post about the lack of good state-level polls, which in hindsight was particularly in states she lost[/URL] idk why i remember all these articles[/QUOTE] Tudd, please just read these. It really shows how your view on this just isn't accurate. It may be indicative of the average voter, not caring about the details of the science here, but it's clear that 538 was on the money the entire election.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51637946]Can you do give any specifics?[/QUOTE] Pretty much the silent majority states being flagged +80% chances towards Hillary Clinton. Probably resulting in relying too much on repeat Obama voters. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51637980]Tudd, please just read these. It really shows how your view on this just isn't accurate. It may be indicative of the average voter, not caring about the details of the science here, but it's clear that 538 was on the money the entire election.[/QUOTE] It really hasn't changed my statements honestly.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51637836]538 was 100% right in their predictions. Not understanding statistics and probability has very little to do with this, but 538 was correct with their call on the election. Like, I hate this analogy, but it's the only one I have. You're playing Xcom. You have a 99% chance to hit a target out of cover from a flanked position. In reality, that 99% chance to hit, is a 1% chance to miss. You fire. You miss. You weren't lied to, you just rolled a 1. Same thing here.[/QUOTE] I feel like a bunch of people interpreted the percentage Trump had as the percentage of votes he was going to get.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637989]Pretty much the silent majority states being flagged +80% chances towards Hillary Clinton. Probably resulting in relying too much on repeat Obama voters. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] It really hasn't changed my statements honestly.[/QUOTE] well that's a shame that information relevant to your beliefs and even contrary to them will just be ignored like that. Especially when you bring up the stats without understanding the background

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51638044]well that's a shame that information relevant to your beliefs and even contrary to them will just be ignored like that. Especially when you bring up the stats without understanding the background[/QUOTE] Actually how is it contradicting anything I said. I just mentioned that they relied perhaps too much on previous voter turn outs, and what you linked was just them talking about the need for more state by state polling. You really have a hard on to prove me wrong on something.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51638054]Actually how is it contradicting anything I said. I just mentioned that they relied perhaps too much on previous voter turn outs, and what you linked was just them talking about the need for state by state polling.[/QUOTE] It shows the lack of serious state polling during that time frame and it shows a reliance on out of date information from groups that they aren't a part of. Their numbers were on the money as probabilities and they were 100% right. They kept checking their data and fixing it as it went on, they kept making it more accurate and more representatitve of the situations that were happening with the data available to them. I have 0 understanding, despite your arguments thus far, as to why you think you're right on this issue, that 538 isn't very relevant going forward. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] I really just appreciate the work of 538 and how good they are at statistics and to just have someone say "nah they're not really accurate or relevant" is silly, they totally were and are.

i love how fox is somehow the less biased network, fox the one which pretends global warming doesn't even exist

You could be anyone, and I'd still make these same arguments. You, Tudd, aren't an enemy of mine, I honestly do not care about you in that sense. I make these statements or arguments because I feel they're valid, just as you make yours.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51638079]i love how fox is somehow the less biased network, fox the one which pretends global warming doesn't even exist[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;oycFlw20_2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oycFlw20_2Y[/video] eh not entirely at least ( very old vid )

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51638060]It shows the lack of serious state polling during that time frame and it shows a reliance on out of date information from groups that they aren't a part of. Their numbers were on the money as probabilities and they were 100% right. They kept checking their data and fixing it as it went on, they kept making it more accurate and more representatitve of the situations that were happening with the data available to them. I have 0 understanding, despite your arguments thus far, as to why you think you're right on this issue, that 538 isn't very relevant going forward. [editline]7th January 2017[/editline] I really just appreciate the work of 538 and how good they are at statistics and to just have someone say "nah they're not really accurate or relevant" is silly, they totally were and are.[/QUOTE] Well I respect the method as I have said before. But my point is, when polls are not right on the outcome, despite the methodology being spot on, people will simply pay less attention to these polls. That is the whole reason why these polls have any motivation to be accurate as a business and garner a track record. You can argue to me all you want about how amazing 538 is, but no matter what you say, the overall amount of interest 538 will generate in the future is going to be less than had Hillary won. This is the reality going forward.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51638130]Well I respect the method as I have said before. But my point is, when polls are not right on the outcome, despite the methodology being spot on, people will simply pay less attention to these polls. That is the whole reason why these polls have any motivation to be accurate as a business and garner a track record. You can argue to me all you want about how amazing 538 is, but no matter what you say, the overall amount of interest 538 will generate in the future is going to be less than had Hillary won. This is the reality going forward.[/QUOTE] If that's because people are ignorant and stupid then so be it but it's very hard to be sure what you're even claiming they failed to do. They didn't say Trump can't win, so when he did win, they weren't wrong. If someone looks at that and thinks they were, they're ignorant and wrong and if that leads to 538 being less relevant maybe you're right but that's a really bad thing for everyone.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51638130]Well I respect the method as I have said before. But my point is, when polls are not right on the outcome, despite the methodology being spot on, people will simply pay less attention to these polls. That is the whole reason why these polls have any motivation to be accurate as a business and garner a track record. You can argue to me all you want about how amazing 538 is, but no matter what you say, the overall amount of interest 538 will generate in the future is going to be less than had Hillary won. This is the reality going forward.[/QUOTE] that's fine if you're talking about interest, but you did say this [QUOTE=Tudd;51637791]Nope, but just shows how this system of statistics can work in the long run where [B]the once held standard is no longer right.[/B][/QUOTE] which is a bit different

I wonder how many of them are in the 'I wouldn't take it on face value if the MSM told me a sunny sky was a pretty shade of light blue' camp, as I am?

And also, "relevant." Relevant is quite different from popular.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51637908]Their state by state chances were just ridiculous on quite a few states. I respect the work that goes into, but people just plainly won't focus on 538 as much after this election.[/QUOTE] Really just the people who didn't focus on them to begin with

I like how we're arguing that 538 is unreliable because it cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy. He even ignored the XCOM analogy, showing he has no idea how percentages work. Or he's just stubborn and refuses to believe anything other than what he already believes.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51639819]I like how we're arguing that 538 is unreliable because it cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy. He even ignored the XCOM analogy, showing he has no idea how percentages work. Or he's just stubborn and refuses to believe anything other than what he already believes.[/QUOTE] The best part too is that FiveThirtyEight not only had predicted the best odds for Trump (Somewhere around 1/3 if I recall), but they were literally getting publicly attacked by others for supposedly skewing the polls towards Trump for attention. [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nate-silver-election-forecast_us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f"]The best of this being this one Huffington Post article[/url], where the author, who ran HuffPo's model for them, savages Nate Silver for his numbers because obviously Trump can't win. Seriously, in a world where just about every other statistical model gave Trump <10% chance of winning, 538's 33% made them come off the best of anyone in that election. But, for some reason, the Trump people really fucking despise 538 and Nate Silver, despite the fact they gave him the best odds throughout the general.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51639819]I like how we're arguing that 538 is unreliable because it cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy. He even ignored the XCOM analogy, showing he has no idea how percentages work. Or he's just stubborn and refuses to believe anything other than what he already believes.[/QUOTE] Instead of being infantile and thinking I don't understand percentages, how about you understand that I simply don't have a hard on for the 538 project and Nate Silver because polling companies are something that get replaced and improved on all the time. His project actually does some worthy and very interesting things, but at the same time I am just telling you the reality that people will look towards it less now after this election.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51639893]Instead of being infantile[/quote] [QUOTE=Tudd;51639893]how about you understand that I simply don't have a hard on for the 538 project and[/quote] ok tuddy old boy defending 538 for actually being pretty accurate apparently means we worship the man, and willingly [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/"]not having an understanding[/URL] of statistics past meme magic preschool is completely fine

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51639930]ok tuddy old boy defending 538 for actually being pretty accurate apparently means we worship the man, and willingly [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/"]not having an understanding[/URL] of statistics past meme magic preschool is completely fine[/QUOTE] Well considering they weren't very accurate on the blue wall states and actually looked pretty retarded right [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/]here[/url] for dismissing it, while still giving such states like Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan huge margins towards Hillary as if that blue wall existed, and it seemed he didn't take his own advice or used the right methods. Seeing how wildly inaccurate that turned out to be. But ofcourse it's all like XCOM. It's not like anybody could analyze the silent majority that existed in these states, but instead let's believe that the election is like a game of chance. Something that if you could redo again with a time travel machine could actually give you a different outcome with nothing changed besides a new attempt. Just reload that save file and eventually it would have turned out the way you wanted.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51639953]Well considering they weren't very accurate on the blue wall states and actually looked pretty retarded right [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/]here[/url] for dismissing it, while still giving such states like Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan huge margins towards Hillary, it seems he didn't take his own advice or used the right methods. Seeing how wildly inaccurate that turned out to be.[/quote] that would be giving special treatment based on the data presented. the polls said that she was doing well in those states, so that's what he reported. you are literally giving him shit for doing his job properly. [QUOTE=Tudd;51639953]But ofcourse it's all like XCOM. It's not like anybody could analyze the silent majority that existed in these states, but instead let's believe that the election is like a game of chance. Something that if you could redo again with a time travel machine could actually give you a different outcome with nothing changed besides a new attempt. Just reload that save file and eventually it would have turned out the way you wanted.[/QUOTE] i'm surprised, i espect someone who hangs out with the likes of /pol/ and breitbart to have actual points like their hats do nate silver's predictions are literally chance based. that's what pollsters are. it's chance. clinton having a 60% chance to win doesn't mean that she's winning by 60%. it could mean that she's winning by 5%, 0.5%, 0.005%. clinton having a 60% chance to win means that she has a 60% chance to win. In every 6 situations clinton wins, trump wins 4 times.

Somebody should put an end to x-leaning "news" sites such as Salon, Mother Jones, Breitbart and InfoWars (yes, I lumped both far right and far left leaning sites in). Or at the very least globally discredit them as a news organization.

Leaning isn't the bad part, the dishonesty is. Be biased all you want, and you'll never avoid bias anyways. But don't lie.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51639953]Well considering they weren't very accurate on the blue wall states and actually looked pretty retarded right [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/"]here[/URL] for dismissing it, while still giving such states like Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan huge margins towards Hillary as if that blue wall existed, and it seemed he didn't take his own advice or used the right methods. Seeing how wildly inaccurate that turned out to be.[/QUOTE] 538 aggregates polls based on demographics and pollster ratings. All he did was analyze other peoples polls and came up with the odds. It's just a fact that nearly every poll conducted in all three states gave Clinton some sort of margin. It doesn't have anything to do with his blue wall post and in fact vindicates it as the takeaway from the article is that the concept of "electoral walls" is practically non-existent. I don't understand how this makes him retarded. [QUOTE=Tudd;51639953]But ofcourse it's all like XCOM. It's not like anybody could analyze the silent majority that existed in these states, but instead let's believe that the election is like a game of chance. Something that if you could redo again with a time travel machine could actually give you a different outcome with nothing changed besides a new attempt. Just reload that save file and eventually it would have turned out the way you wanted.[/QUOTE] How do you analyze the silent majority from an objective standpoint? And that's not at all what people mean when they use the XCOM metaphor.