Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Lead, Aug 26, 2016.
Edit: double post
I think this went over your head. The winner is determined by total pledged electors. I never said OH is a swing state. My point is that Trump winning 270 electors was totally consistent with a 2.5% state polling error. Therefore this could not have been the standard used by Wang to arrive at his 99% nonsense.
As for your quibble about the RCP average: any average that included at least RCP's polls would arrive at the same conclusion.
Maybe Wang's model excluded some polls he didn't like, but then he would be even more worthy of criticism.
Apparently this went over your head: I'm just stating what Wang reports as his method and the purported meaning of his meta-margin. I didn't build his model.
Ohio isnt a swing state?
I guess I don't really think of it as one since it has been shedding electoral votes and democrats typically underperform national polls. I may well be using an inappropriate definition though, if so, my apologies.
Let's summarize your "contribution" to this thread.
1. You first claimed there was "a ~5% polling error".
I responded by demonstrating that your statement is obviously false.
2. Failing to rebut my data, you changed the subject, claiming that "Wang's [99% Clinton] prediction was based off state level errors being less than about 2.5%."
I easily demonstrated that this claim is false because Trump had multiple paths to the presidency assuming polling state error of 2.5%.
3. You change your statement : "I'm just stating what Wang reports as his method"
No, you claimed that his prediction was "based on" that method.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be a person who copies the opinions of media-deemed "experts", even when those "experts" are demonstrably wrong. This thread and your global warming alarmism are strong evidence of a need for some serious introspection.
1. We doing that Ivanka bet? Make an offer on terms.
2. What odds you wanna give that this guy admits to any mistake on his part? I might take the action.
Brah, I thought about it but no. I see what you see.
As for 2, no because he will probably change his behavior in order to guarantee I lose.
Let's think of something else.
What makes you think he'd rather see me win our bet than you?
Just a guess. I have called him on his BS before. Maybe you have as well...?
I used to argue alot with his alt account (@dochtor). When it reached the point where he was insisting he knew what was going on in my mind it became a little too much smug so I don't really bother anymore.
You on the other hand are a joy. Please post more often.
What are you talking about? I'm not defending Wang, he was clearly wrong. I've merely mentioned what his meta-margin should mean based on what he's written about it. My understanding of his meta-margin was simply that it is a measure of the necessary magnitude of the polling error required for outcomes to flip. I don't know and have never claimed to know exactly what polls he used. Your repeated posting of RCP numbers is thus utterly irrelevant. In reality, more should have been made of the meta-margin than the probability. I don't know the details of Wang's model but my understanding is that it comes down to polling error in this case (same with Silver).
It's the exact same account, just a name change. I never claimed to know your mind. I claimed that you used words or phrases that had very clear and common connotations and then acted surprised when people interpreted them accordingly. There were basically two options: 1) you didn't understand the connotations or 2) you did and were intentionally trolling in a passive-aggressive manner. Those are still the two options and I did (and do) strongly lean towards 1.
Ok, my mistake on there being a separate account.
Yes, you made a claim and then did nothing to demonstrate it. Just smugly asserted how correct you were and that was it. Your arrogance wouldn't allow you to admit you and the other guy jumped the gun even though I demonstrated quite clearly how my thoughts at the time fit the connotation of the saying that you referred to. You went beyond connotation and insisted on something more specific, then failed miserably in citing any outside sources to bolster your claim. Instead just acting like you were the decider of fact. And to top it off you couldn't even articulate what exactly the implication was. Presumably because it would be different than what others would say and that would have shown your whole argument was faulty.
No worries though. I'm just sharing my experience with a poster I like and don't wish to see discouraged from increasing his activity here.
Yeah, that's all false. Regardless, this isn't the thread for it, despite your need to interject your oh so important feelings about me into another thread.
Actually JVS pointed out I was wrong on that too. My comment was based on something I read that was comparing to exit polls. You're right, that was wrong.
No, you've not demonstrated that claim was false. Wang's prediction was based off his meta-margin of 2.2%. I didn't recall the exact number so I said about 2.5. Feel free to go back and look back at how I actually phrased things.
This is very interesting, because I've heard so many talking heads completely slight polling data.
I was trying to make a bet with @waiguoren and in his reticence the story came up. You try way to hard to prove me wrong/make me look bad. It's gotten so bad you're now talking about my feelings. Maybe next year, with this attitude, you can win the award for most staying on subject.
Are you making a bet here or just...?
I've mostly been replying to comments made toward or about me. I agree though, waiguoren had been quite insistent on keeping things off-topic.
Looks like you came in talking about polling error and he disputed what you claimed. If he's off-topic then how are you on topic, when it's your topic?