User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4159
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Boca Raton FL

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:06 pm

golfcart wrote:Like them or not, those are the rules of the game...

And had those rules been different the behavior of both the candidates and the electorate would have been different. Speculate all you want, it's irrelevant.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue

rmay635703
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:21 am

LTLFTcomposite wrote:So WetEV you're telling us pollsters were unaware of how presidential elections work? You're not making a very convincing argument for the "science" here.

No offense but polls poll likely voters

A large number of nevers did and a large number of always didn't .

A lot of it had to do with "single issue" voting.

If you question certain people about how they would feel about a given policy if one party spearheads it you get one answer and if the other were mentioned they give a different answer.

We are down the rabbit hole of what happens when most people are so brain dead they are only aware of the text messages off their mobile device.
They think there is a sex ring in a pizza parlor because said so, they don't care if such and such is lying because they are being told what they want to hear.

And that is what it boils down to , we are telling people what they want to hear to get them to do what we want.

Hispanics voting republican is pretty common because the error you make is that many of them identify by their religion first, agree with issues said to be conservative and second that fact means there is a rift between existing hispanics, new Hispanic and those who would identify as American first.

I also wouldn't waste time even arguing that Neo Nazi and KKK groups don't play a role, they both strongly support Trump period.
There is no alternative fact on the matter, he inspires people who want more authoritarian leadership.

And sadly there are a lot of people who need to think there is some bully sticking it to someone, even if the reality is far from it.

WetEV
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:37 am

golfcart wrote:
WetEV wrote:28.2% chance of Trump winning, as of Nov 8th. (Polls-plus forecast)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo

So flip two coins. Got two heads? Now is that really unlikely?


I wouldn't want to accuse you of cherrypicking


But I did pick the source I was following before the election, you have a point. FiveThirtyEight was not the center estimate.

golfcart wrote:but your own link puts the odds of Trump winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote (which is what happened) at 10.5% in the "crazy and not so crazy scenarios" section at the bottom.


10.5% is not so crazy of an outcome. So I'll round up 10.5% up to 12.5% and repeat my question. Is flipping three coins and having all heads so amazing?
And round down to 6.5%, repeat with four coins.

You can't judge a probability based prediction as flawed on one outcome. If the weather forecast said "10% chance of rain", and it rained tomorrow, would that be a "failed forecast"? Even if it didn't rain again, with the same forecast, for next 9 days? A 1 in 16 chance should show up 1 out of 16 times, on the average, and we are at #45. So, on the average, should expect about 3 such outcomes in history, if we had been running polls the whole time.

Now, "Princeton Election Consortium" you have more of a point, 99+% is very sure... And far from the center estimate.

golfcart wrote:And enough about the popular vote already, it didn't matter one bit. Like them or not, those are the rules of the game...


The popular vote matters when discussing national opinion polls, as that is what the polls are measuring. And yes, the people running the polls know the rules.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

golfcart
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:46 am

WetEV wrote:
10.5% is not so crazy of an outcome. So I'll round up 10.5% up to 12.5% and repeat my question. Is flipping three coins and having all heads so amazing?
And round down to 6.5%, repeat with four coins.

You can't judge a probability based prediction as flawed on one outcome. If the weather forecast said "10% chance of rain", and it rained tomorrow, would that be a "failed forecast"? Even if it didn't rain again, with the same forecast, for next 9 days?


Everyone got it wrong, badly, is my point. I don't really think you are cherrypicking, I am just giving you a hard time about your comments regarding my trustworthiness after rounding up 1 percentage point.

If the polling were representative of reality there should be no error, you just sum up each state then divvy out the electoral college votes. It isn't rocket science. They'll be wrong in favor of one candidate on some states and wrong in favor of the other candidate in another. This is not what happened, essentially every single state that they were wrong about went to Trump. I don't recall them projecting any states for Trump that went for Clinton. He didn't just win, he kicked her ass. What are the odds of that happening? Daily Kos had it 323 Clinton and 215 Trump. Every single forecast referenced on 270 to win had Trump at 216 or less.

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

Weather forecasts are a bad analogy anyways... they are limited by our ability to properly sample the conditions of the atmosphere, our need to make simplifications in how we model the atmosphere, and some level of chaos in the system. Plus, a 10% chance of rain just means that there is a 10% chance that it will rain somwhere in the forecast area, it tells you little else. Most people don't understand what probability of precipitation forecasts really are. If it were a 10% chance of rain and it drizzled for 20 minutes I'd call that fine. If it were a 10% chance of rain and it poured for 12 hours I would question the accuracy of those forecasters and try to figure out what was so unique about this situation that allowed them to get the forecast so wrong.

WetEV wrote:
golfcart wrote:And enough about the popular vote already, it didn't matter one bit. Like them or not, those are the rules of the game...


The popular vote matters when discussing national opinion polls, as that is what the polls are measuring. And yes, the people running the polls know the rules.


I think that misses the point, those predictions were the likelyhood of Trump winning the election not Trump winning the popular vote. They poll people at the state level as well, they don't just take a national poll and then assume that each state votes in the exact proportions that the country votes. I'm not mad at you, I see where you are coming from... I just disagree and have made my case for why I disagree.

I really don't see why it is so hard to imagine that people less likely to tell the truth in public polls this election? I don't put a lot of confidence in the social sciences in terms of details, but the can get the big picture right sometimes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

If the leader of one party is calling you and your ilk "deplorables", and the media is overwhelmingly endorsing that candidate, is it unreasonable to imagine that 5 - 10% of people who intended to vote for Trump just lied or said they were undecided? Doesn't strike me as a far-fetched scenario.
2015 S with Charge Package

WetEV
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:12 am

golfcart wrote:If the polling were representative of reality there should be no error,


Sorry, but no measurement is without error, other than perhaps a total count if you are sure you counted each and every item.

Sampling error is well founded mathematics. Ignore it at your peril. As did some of the talking heads.


Question: Suppose "X" Trump voters changed their minds at the last second, and voted for Clinton.

What is the smallest number of "X" that would have changed the result?

What percentage of the total vote was that?
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

WetEV
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:16 am

Trump is unprepared.

Image
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

golfcart
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:28 am

WetEV wrote:
golfcart wrote:If the polling were representative of reality there should be no error,


Sorry, but no measurement is without error, other than perhaps a total count if you are sure you counted each and every item.

Sampling error is well founded mathematics. Ignore it at your peril. As did some of the talking heads.


Question: Suppose "X" Trump voters changed their minds at the last second, and voted for Clinton.

What is the smallest number of "X" that would have changed the result?

What percentage of the total vote was that?


I'll admit that me saying no error was poorly worded, they shouldn't have all been wrong in the same direction it should have roughly balanced out is what I should have said. Randomly distributed error is not what we saw, a bias (in the statistical sense) is what we saw. I am sure you know what that is since you seem to have some knowledge of statistics.

Of course there are margins of error for any sample, there is no peril you are just being melodramatic. They were all wrong in favor of Clinton. Every toss up state that had to go for Trump went for Trump, even some states that were supposedly favoring Clinton went for Trump. I think you are smart enough to know what I am saying here.

I have said my piece, we're just nitpicking at this point. No sense we keep wasting electricity with this...
2015 S with Charge Package

User avatar
dgpcolorado
Posts: 2915
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:56 pm
Delivery Date: 15 Dec 2011
Location: The Western Slope, Colorado

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:30 am

golfcart wrote:...Weather forecasts are a bad analogy anyways... they are limited by our ability to properly sample the conditions of the atmosphere, our need to make simplifications in how we model the atmosphere, and some level of chaos in the system. Plus, a 10% chance of rain just means that there is a 10% chance that it will rain somwhere in the forecast area, it tells you little else. Most people don't understand what probability of precipitation forecasts really are. If it were a 10% chance of rain and it drizzled for 20 minutes I'd call that fine. If it were a 10% chance of rain and it poured for 12 hours I would question the accuracy of those forecasters and try to figure out what was so unique about this situation that allowed them to get the forecast so wrong...
Polling does have its issues with sampling. During the last election cycle I was sampled by pollsters because I was reachable by landline. This time around I only have a cell phone so pollsters can't reach me; like many with cell phones I don't answer calls from numbers that I don't know. How do the pollsters get a representative sample of likely voters if there is a large subset they flat can't reach? And that sample of cell-phone-only folks is skewed younger — even though I am decidedly not young — since they are more likely to not have landlines. So, polling has sampling issues and I was surprised how close they came to national poll numbers despite the difficulties.

The electoral college was decided by tiny vote numbers in a handful of states. It was hard to predict that outcome because polling individual swing states is quite difficult. Calling that a major breakdown of polling seems a stretch to me. I'm amazed the pollsters do as well as they do given the difficulties of random sampling in the modern era.
Blue 2012 SV Dec 2011 to Feb 2016
CPO 2014 Tesla S60 Mar 2016
One car, no ICE, at last!
Tesla Referral Code

WetEV
Posts: 1709
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:16 am

WetEV wrote:Question: Suppose "X" Trump voters changed their minds at the last second, and voted for Clinton.

What is the smallest number of "X" that would have changed the result?

What percentage of the total vote was that?


Final Result Trump 306 Clinton 232

Pennsylvania. 20 Electoral votes. Trump 2,970,733, Clinton 2,926,441 Difference 44,292, number of Trump switching to Clinton = 22,147

Flip state total Trump 286 Clinton 252

Michigan. 16 Electoral votes Trump 2,279,543 Clinton 2,268,839 Difference 10,704, number of Trump voters to Clinton = 5,353

Flip 2 states total Trump 270 Clinton 268

Wisconsin. 10 Electoral votes. Trump 1,405,284 Clinton 1,382,536 Difference 22,748, number of Trump voters to Clinton = 11,475

Flip 3 states total Trump 260 Clinton 278

Total votes to flip result = 38,974 out of 128,838,341 = 0.03% (ignoring third party votes)

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

golfcart
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:49 am

WetEV wrote:
WetEV wrote:Question: Suppose "X" Trump voters changed their minds at the last second, and voted for Clinton.

What is the smallest number of "X" that would have changed the result?

What percentage of the total vote was that?


Final Result Trump 306 Clinton 232

Pennsylvania. 20 Electoral votes. Trump 2,970,733, Clinton 2,926,441 Difference 44,292, number of Trump switching to Clinton = 22,147

Flip state total Trump 286 Clinton 252

Michigan. 16 Electoral votes Trump 2,279,543 Clinton 2,268,839 Difference 10,704, number of Trump voters to Clinton = 5,353

Flip 2 states total Trump 270 Clinton 268

Wisconsin. 10 Electoral votes. Trump 1,405,284 Clinton 1,382,536 Difference 22,748, number of Trump voters to Clinton = 11,475

Flip 3 states total Trump 260 Clinton 278

Total votes to flip result = 38,974 out of 128,838,341 = 0.03% (ignoring third party votes)

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.


Moving the goalposts and responding to your own questions rather than responding to my posts is not the sign of someone making a strong point. What use is the minimum X? The question to ask is what is the "X" in each state he won but she was favored between predicted and actual and what are the odds that every single X was biased in the same direction? Are you familiar with the concept of a straw man, you have provided a nice example?
2015 S with Charge Package

Return to “Environmental Issues”