2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

InTheTrees · 29-09-2016 04:47PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

GAry Johnson's position as a joke candidate solidifies as he fails to name a foreign leader he admires.

It's baffling isn't it? He doesnt seem to know very much about what's happening in the world does he? The "libertarian" party's nomination process must have been interesting.

29-09-2016 04:54PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

It's baffling isn't it? He doesnt seem to know very much about what's happening in the world does he? The "libertarian" party's nomination process must have been interesting.

Excruciating actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrY3uEElh08

Trent Houseboat · 29-09-2016 04:59PM

fivethirtyeight had it 51.5-48.5 for Clinton earlier this week. WAs that accurate or are they only biased when they're predicting in opposition to what you'd prefer?

Amerika wrote:

They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.

How often? Like do you have any examples?

Who decides where a site is on that left right spectrum?

YOu posted two links yesterday "proving" that the debate was rigged. Do those site rank squarely in the least biased section?

There's been a fantastic use of graphics in the past couple of pages.

B_Wayne · 29-09-2016 05:12PM

Given their accuracy with previous elections in contrast to standard polling, seems bizarre to label as left wing bias..

Amerika · 29-09-2016 05:18PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Who decides where a site is on that left right spectrum?

Why, the 'fact checkers,' of course. As long a someone claims to be a fact checker these days, their word is to be taken as gospel, or so I've been told.

Billy86 · 29-09-2016 05:29PM

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?

LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

More proof that statistics and hard fact have a left leaning bias.

(I don't think this poster knows how 538 works)

TheDoctor · 29-09-2016 05:30PM

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?

LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

Considering they got 50/50 states in the last election I'll stick with them.

I believe right wing bias was the issue with the last election.

The meltdown on Fox after Romneys loss (having predicted he would get over 300 electoral college votes) was a sight to behold.

Suryavarman · 29-09-2016 05:36PM

Amerika wrote: »

Give me a break. A 'second great depression' was never in the cards. Or is there some magical revelation you’d like to bestow upon us?

The cumulative deficits during Obama's first 4 years in office were $5.27tn. With monetary policy losing its effectiveness, what would have happened had $5.27tn been taken out of the economy while in deep recession or recovering from the recession?

Billy86 · 29-09-2016 05:37PM

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059?rm=eu

Any Trump fans want to comment on this? The guy who cannot stop talking about trade agreements, and showing how little understanding he seems to have of many of them, has been breaking US trade agreements and embargos with Cuba, it turns out.

ebbsy · 29-09-2016 05:37PM

Somebody should tell Gary Johnson to give it up.

ebbsy · 29-09-2016 05:39PM

Billy86 wrote: »

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059?rm=eu

Any Trump fans want to comment on this? The guy who cannot stop talking about trade agreements, and showing how little understanding he seems to have of many of them, has been breaking US trade agreements and embargos with Cuba, it turns out.

People over there ain't interested in this bud. They will think about The Apprentice and tick that box in the polling booth.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 05:52PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The cumulative deficits during Obama's first 4 years in office were $5.27tn. With monetary policy losing its effectiveness, what would have happened had $5.27tn been taken out of the economy while in deep recession or recovering from the recession?

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

Brian? · 29-09-2016 05:52PM

Amerika wrote: »

We all love fact checkers these days, right? It’s all the rage I hear.

So, where does FIVETHIRTYEIGHT stand in regards to Media Bias/Fact Check?

LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

SURPRISE!

Nice ad hominem attack on fivethirtyeight. How about you disect their statistical models and tell us why it's wrong?

Remind me how did ignoring Nate Silvers predictions work out in 2012? How's president Romeny doing?

Brian? · 29-09-2016 05:55PM

Amerika wrote: »

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

So how low would the unemployment rate have been under president Romney? It's pretty low right now.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 06:03PM

Brian? wrote: »

So how low would the unemployment rate have been under president Romney? It's pretty low right now.

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 06:05PM

Brian? wrote: »

Nice ad hominem attack on fivethirtyeight. How about you disect their statistical models and tell us why it's wrong?

Remind me how did ignoring Nate Silvers predictions work out in 2012? How's president Romeny doing?

Not an ad hominem attack. Just advising people to proceed with caution before taking their 'facts' as gospel.

Billy86 · 29-09-2016 06:14PM

ebbsy wrote: »

People over there ain't interested in this bud. They will think about The Apprentice and tick that box in the polling booth.

Sad truth that you're probably quite right, isn't it?

On a side note, I would love to have that yer man from the X-Men has, to see exactly who is voting Trump and why. Disillusioned rustbelt types vs racists and bigots vs the completely uninformed vs 'celebrityz white house!!' and so on.

Brian? · 29-09-2016 06:16PM

Amerika wrote: »

Not an ad hominem attack. Just advising people to proceed with caution before taking their 'facts' as gospel.

What facts? They present a statistical liklehood of a candidate winning. If you think they're biased, you must think they are tweaking their statistical model to favour Clinton, correct?

The whole idea is they don't claim certainty. You seem to think they do.

Brian? · 29-09-2016 06:18PM

Amerika wrote: »

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

So Obama has synchronously created and killed jobs? How many extra people are employed by the federal government versus in 2008?

Suryavarman · 29-09-2016 06:26PM

Amerika wrote: »

The Great Depression was brought about by misguided policies in response to the financial crisis. Policies are in place so as not to let this happen again. What we most had to fear in 2008 recession was a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment. Unfortunately, with Obama’s massive spending that doubled our nations debt, this is exactly what we got, anyway.

You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if you cut $5.27tn out of an economy while it was recovering from a very deep recession?

Amerika wrote: »

I'd guess the U-3 rate would be about the same, but the real unemployment rate (U-6) would be much better because Romney would have worked to create real jobs instead of killing them as Obama has done. Except if you're talking about government jobs that must be paid by the taxpayers, that is.

U-3 is the real unemployment rate. Under Obama the US has enjoyed a record breaking streak of private sector job creation. Do you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claims?

B_Wayne · 29-09-2016 06:32PM

I'd also suspect the five thirty eight would prefer to get their models right over anything else. Who wins is somewhat second from what I've seen of Silver.

TheDoctor · 29-09-2016 06:36PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'd also suspect the five thirty eight would prefer to get their models right over anything else. Who wins is somewhat second from what I've seen of Silver.

I can only see his 2008 and 2012 models. Not sure he did 2004.

2008 - 49/50 states correct
2012 - 50/50 states correct

99% accurate is pretty decent.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 08:09PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if you cut $5.27tn out of an economy while it was recovering from a very deep recession?

Obama added $6.5 Trillion to the debt. First, please tell me where that money went into the economy.

U-3 is the real unemployment rate. Under Obama the US has enjoyed a record breaking streak of private sector job creation. Do you have any evidence to support your ridiculous claims?

The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.

That sounds like the real unemployment rate to me.

Suryavarman · 29-09-2016 08:24PM

Amerika wrote: »

Obama added $6.5 Trillion to the debt. First, please tell me where that money went into the economy.

What do you think happened? Do you think they burned it?

Now stop dodging the question. What would have happened to the economy if that $5.27tn wasn't spent and was just taken out of the economy?

The U-6 rate is defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the labor force." That means the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged.

That sounds like the real unemployment rate to me.

People with jobs and people not looking for work are not unemployed. Unemployed people are people that are out of work and looking for work.

Trent Houseboat · 29-09-2016 08:41PM

Amerika wrote: »

Why, the 'fact checkers,' of course. As long a someone claims to be a fact checker these days, their word is to be taken as gospel, or so I've been told.

so just completely ignoring my question.

By the standard of the graphic based arguements here you could write the word "President" over a picture of Donald and people would think he'd won.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 09:02PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

so just completely ignoring my question.

By the standard of the graphic based arguements here you could write the word "President" over a picture of Donald and people would think he'd won.

I just provided information on 538. I think their predictions could be suspect, just like I think Rasmussen's are at times because they slants right. Are they right or wrong... only time will tell. People will use each to make their point. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong when someone says they might be a bit biased one way or the other.

And, I don't quite understand your graphic/Donald statement.

Overheal · 29-09-2016 09:04PM

you're welcome to think 538 is suspect but given the accuracy of their calls the last couple cycles I think I'll stick with them.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 09:06PM

Overheal wrote: »

you're welcome to think 538 is suspect but given the accuracy of their calls the last couple cycles I think I'll stick with them.

And you're welcome to think this is a normal election.

Overheal · 29-09-2016 09:14PM

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Amerika · 29-09-2016 09:42PM

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks, but their math seems pretty valid

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

They use some severe statistics and probability math to come up with these determinations. All very well explained with the scientific details left up to you to google I guess (such as what a t-distribution is) along with accounting for polling and historical uncertainties. Their methodology seems pretty sound.

Seems good on paper, but is it not true that historically the polls they utilize have a strong bias towards Democrats?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments