Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
LTLFTcomposite said:
WetEV said:
Exit polls are interesting. For example:

"Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 52%"
"Q: Do you think Donald Trump is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 38%"

So how did Donald Trump win? The voters didn't think him the most qualified.
Maybe the polling process was flawed.

Shooting the messenger, eh?

Or perhaps some people voted for a less qualified candidate in their opinion for some reason? What were the reason(s)?

I can think of a few. Can you?
 
WetEV said:
Shooting the messenger, eh?

Or perhaps some people voted for a less qualified candidate in their opinion for some reason? What were the reason(s)?

I can think of a few. Can you?
I can think of plenty of reasons people didn't vote for HRC, none of them having to do with people's skin color or what they do with their genitals. But that wasn't my point. Was the poll run by the same people who said there was no path to victory for DT in early November?

Just curious, did any pollsters ask you who you were going to vote for? Nobody asked me.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Just curious, did any pollsters ask you who you were going to vote for? Nobody asked me.

Suppose you have a pile of parts. How many do you need to test, chosen at random, before you know to 95% certainty that 95% or more of all the parts are good? Sure, need to test all of them if you have 20 parts. But what if you have 20 million?
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
I don't claim to understand all the reasons Trump was elected, but something like that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Clearly the existing political parties had not gained the trust of a large portions of Americans... that includes the 10% of Blacks, 30% of Asians and 30% of Hispanics that voted for Trump according to exit polling which you never hear about because the media wants this to be about "racist" and "xenophobic" working class whites only.

I went and checked numbers... Yea, a trust issue.

8% of Blacks voted for Trump
27% of Asians voted for Trump
28% of Hispanic voted for Trump

Source Fox News, the other mainstream media.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/exit-polls

Trump wouldn't be President with these numbers. And not everyone that voted for Trump because they liked him. Mrs. Clinton has a few issues as well, and Trump did a great job in keeping these in the news, and some people vote on specific issues such as abortion. There are some that vote straight party line, some for understandable historic issues. Such as Cubans for Republicans.

There is a substantial racist and xenophobic support for the Donald. I know, as I have relatives that resemble that statement closely. Trump has excited these people, as Trump is openly xenophobic and racist. Not all people that voted for him are, of course, as I've pointed out above.

Exit polls are interesting. For example:

"Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 52%"
"Q: Do you think Donald Trump is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 38%"

So how did Donald Trump win? The voters didn't think him the most qualified.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector is poorly calibrated so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying my numbers are off because i rounded up a couple of percentage points and that invalidates my point or are you sort of agreeing with me?

My specific point there was that, if you trust the polling to be even remotely correct, there were a lot more people than just "pissed of bigoted white people" that voted for Trump including a large portion of Hispanics who he supposedly hates (because the media generally makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigration when they are getting up in their soapbox). But you hear nothing about those people in the news, instead you get a bunch of people psuedo-studying rednecks in flyover country like they are anthropologists discovering some ancient civilization in a faraway land. It is laughable... they are trying so hard to maintain the bigoted whites vs 'woke' whites and people of color narrative that it makes them look silly.

Of course there is a nationalist component (some might call xenophobic) to some of Trumps support. Of course there are some racists that voted for Trump. And of course a bunch of white people who feel like their interests have been left behind by republican corporatism and democrat globalism and multiculturalism that voted for him. There are also legal immigrants that don't like democrats apparent disregard for federal immigration law that voted for him (I work with one). There are also black people that can't understand why there are people illegally coming into the country and finding work while the unemployment rate in their community is near 30% (my neighbor is one).

If people trusted that the existing parties were looking out for their interest it would have been Jeb vs Clinton not Trump vs Clinton. And if the Democrats didn't rig the primary for Hillary it could have likely been Sanders vs Trump instead of Hillary vs Trump (and I suspect Sanders would have won because he spoke to the same issues as Trump with remedies that treated all Americans the same). The message I take away from this election is that a large portion of the country doesn't feel like the government is representing their interest and they voted for a guy that raised a middle finger to the whole establishment.
 
golfcart said:
Sorry, my sarcasm detector is poorly calibrated so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying my numbers are off because i rounded up a couple of percentage points and that invalidates my point or are you sort of agreeing with me?

Yes.

It is complex, isn't it?

Politics is based on trust. Inaccurate numbers reduce trust. Even if I agree with you.
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
Sorry, my sarcasm detector is poorly calibrated so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying my numbers are off because i rounded up a couple of percentage points and that invalidates my point or are you sort of agreeing with me?

Yes.

It is complex, isn't it?

Politics is based on trust. Inaccurate numbers reduce trust. Even if I agree with you.

LOL, I'll give it to the 2nd decimal next time if that makes you feel better. Ironically, the New York Times (which is what I referenced when I made that post) had Hispanics and Asians at 29% each and Blacks at 8%. I might have expected Fox to have the more favorable minorities for trump numbers. haha. That said, I felt like 30%, 30%, and 10% was close enough... it's not like I'm running for office.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
 
WetEV said:
Suppose you have a pile of parts. How many do you need to test, chosen at random, before you know to 95% certainty that 95% or more of all the parts are good? Sure, need to test all of them if you have 20 parts. But what if you have 20 million?
Maybe they weren't chosen at random. Something was flawed in their process because they came up with the wrong answer. Bigly.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
WetEV said:
Suppose you have a pile of parts. How many do you need to test, chosen at random, before you know to 95% certainty that 95% or more of all the parts are good? Sure, need to test all of them if you have 20 parts. But what if you have 20 million?
Maybe they weren't chosen at random. Something was flawed in their process because they came up with the wrong answer. Bigly.

Really? Clinton won by almost 3 million votes: 65,853,625 votes to 62,985,106 votes.

Margin of error of polls is usually around +-3%, hard to do much better. Clinton was leading by 44% to 40%, and won the popular vote by more than 2%, so inside of margin of error.

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_44/1783941/likely_voters_-_four-way_race_trump_clinton_johnson_stein_chartbuilder_4ed0f4290faa1678415ebe7c8e11e231.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.png

So the polls were fine.

Oh, the polls were not done by electoral collage. So national polls were answering the wrong question, to an extent.

What was more flawed was the interpretation of the polls. And even that wasn't so far off:

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

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

So flip two coins. Got two heads? Now is that really unlikely?
 
WetEV said:
28.2% chance of Trump winning, as of Nov 8th. (Polls-plus forecast)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

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

I wouldn't want to accuse you of cherrypicking 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. And you were giving me a hard time about rounding up from 29% to 30% ;)

And here is the NYT compilation of a bunch of other "expert" forecasts (scroll down the page about 40% of the way), I trust that you were unaware of 538 being by far one of the most Trump friendly "expert" models when you decided to reference that one...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

I'll go over a few of the highlights:

NYT: 85% Clinton
538: 71% Clinton
HuffPo: 98% Clinton
PredictWise: 89% Clinton
Princeton Election Consortium: 99% Clinton
Daily Kos: 92% Clinton

I tend to side with LTLFTcomposite based on those predictions. The "experts" blew this one... bigly. Either their models suck or the polling was flawed. Most of those are like fiipping 4 coins in a row and getting heads every time. Not impossible, but definitely not likely. And certainly not the kind of performance I'd trust in the future unless they could point to some flaw, like people lying at the polls, which contributed to their colossal failure.

And enough about the popular vote already, it didn't matter one bit. It is the equivalent of the Sixers saying they should have beat the Warriors because they made more field goals even though the Warriors outscored them by 10... one team made a bunch of layups while the other team made a bunch of 3's. Like them or not, those are the rules of the game...
 
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.
 
golfcart said:
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.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
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.
 
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
28.2% chance of Trump winning, as of Nov 8th. (Polls-plus forecast)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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-forecast-predictions/

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 said:
golfcart said:
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.
 
golfcart said:
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?
 
Trump is unprepared.

31bloomberg-master768.jpg
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
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...
 
golfcart said:
...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.
 
WetEV said:
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 said:
WetEV said:
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?
 
Back
Top