El Presidente Trump

RobertKK · 02-12-2016 02:14AM

Watching the Trump "thank you" rally in Cincinnati that is on right now.
No one could accuse Trump of being boring.

BorneTobyWilde · 02-12-2016 02:29AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Watching the Trump "thank you" rally in Cincinnati that is on right now.
No one could accuse Trump of being boring.

Thought he would be different, he's giving it large though.

Mocking newscasters who cried when he won, doing impression of them like a comedian lol
Goes off script to say'' o and by the way, obama care is gone, we are repealing it''
Making fun of protesters in crowd, '' i think they forget Hillary lost, go home to mommy''
This is crazy stuff , he won, no need for this.

RobertKK · 02-12-2016 02:36AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Thought he would be different, he's giving it large though.

Mocking newscasters who cried when he won, doing impression of them like a comedian lol
Goes off script to say'' o and by the way, obama care is gone, we are repealing it''
Making fun of protesters in crowd, '' i think they forget Hillary lost, go home to mommy''
This is crazy stuff , he won, no need for this.

This is one reason I wanted Trump over Hillary:
Trump has said the US will stop with regime change and toppling regimes and instead will seek stability.

He is the same Trump alright that campaigned to win to where he is now.

Billy86 · 02-12-2016 02:57AM

RobertKK wrote: »

He is the same Trump alright that campaigned to win to where he is now.

Sounds like you're saying he hasn't been going back on his words from the campaign? Surely it's just late at night an I'm reading your post incorrectly (no, seriously)?

RobertKK · 02-12-2016 03:29AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Sounds like you're saying he hasn't been going back on his words from the campaign? Surely it's just late at night an I'm reading your post incorrectly (no, seriously)?

Well he seems to flip certain policies, while consistent on others.
He stayed quiet when 'Lock her up' was chanted.
The wall will be built he claims.
Consistent on foreign policy and how the wars were bad for America.
Obamacare will be repealed and replaced.

He said he heard complaints that he appointed a billionaire - Wilbur Ross to commerce, he said he knows how to make money, and he could have appointed someone who didn't know how to make money but no one would have wanted that.

Claimed people were pouring into the US from the middle east and that this is not good for the US as he said they don't want the US to be like France and Germany where they have big problems.

He attacked the media and laughed at them about how they at one time claimed Texas was in play.

ebbsy · 02-12-2016 03:42AM

Skommando wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Man with all that evidence you got there I have no idea how to come back from it. Curious why all these left wing polls were off in favour of Romney before 2012 (granted not enough for him to be winning in them but hey, a realistic national poll wouldn't have Trump ahead either:P)

Did you happen to miss the actually election result ? Still in denial ?
Sure you could always prove your pretend point by showing us all your evidence of how the vast majority of supposedly professional polls and media got their predictions about the election and the views of ordinary Americans correct.

There are a lot of people in denial, a lot of them can offer the lazy racism,sexist,stupid etc reply but dont have the capacity to talk about why Clinton lost.

8 years of Trump is what they deserve. They might even go out and vote next time.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 08:10AM

Skommando wrote: »

Did you happen to miss the actually election result ? Still in denial ?
Sure you could always prove your pretend point by showing us all your evidence of how the vast majority of supposedly professional polls and media got their predictions about the election and the views of ordinary Americans correct.

Do have evidence they were intentionally skewed or is this just more Trump supporter "opinion" to avoid needing evidence. Polls end up being a little off. What Hillary won the national vote by 2% or so and was predicted to win by 3-4%. Hardly that badly off. Remember Obama overshot his polls. Were they intentionally skewed in favour of Romney then?

Was the la times poll which over predicted the vote share Trump would get also intentionally skewed (but in favour of Trump)?

HellSquirrel · 02-12-2016 09:01AM

Skommando wrote: »

Did you happen to miss the actually election result ? Still in denial ?
Sure you could always prove your pretend point by showing us all your evidence of how the vast majority of supposedly professional polls and media got their predictions about the election and the views of ordinary Americans correct.

There were two big reasons. I'm not actually sure what your argument is, it appears to be IS RIGGED, but okay.

1. Yep, turns out the LA Times poll was more accurate. There was some conversation at the time that the LAT included in their polling a larger representation from a group that most other polls didn't really include that accurately. Partly that was because the group in question do not tend to be that politically active. Well, this time they were!

2. No-one really believed that Trump and his lack of policies, his constant controversies and his pitiful communication techniques could actually win. On top of the legal issues plus the massive problem of conflicts of interest between the presidency and running an international umbrella company AS WELL AS the confused racism, misogyny, utter lack of regard for facts and an ability to non-sequitur like a squirrel on steroids, he simply was not taken seriously. Yes, that is a bias of the human brain. When looking at data, we're trained to keep the emotional and illogical arguments off to one side as unquantifiable and suspect. The polling and interpretation methodology did not take into account sheer populism.

Yep, both of these issues will have to be remedied in future, although I sincerely hope we never see an election in a world-shaping country so utterly reliant on conspirazoid bull****tery again.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 09:13AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

There were two big reasons. I'm not actually sure what your argument is, it appears to be IS RIGGED, but okay.

1. Yep, turns out the LA Times poll was more accurate. There was some conversation at the time that the LAT included in their polling a larger representation from a group that most other polls didn't really include that accurately. Partly that was because the group in question do not tend to be that politically active. Well, this time they were!

2. No-one really believed that Trump and his lack of policies, his constant controversies and his pitiful communication techniques could actually win. On top of the legal issues plus the massive problem of conflicts of interest between the presidency and running an international umbrella company AS WELL AS the confused racism, misogyny, utter lack of regard for facts and an ability to non-sequitur like a squirrel on steroids, he simply was not taken seriously. Yes, that is a bias of the human brain. When looking at data, we're trained to keep the emotional and illogical arguments off to one side as unquantifiable and suspect. The polling and interpretation methodology did not take into account sheer populism.

Yep, both of these issues will have to be remedied in future, although I sincerely hope we never see an election in a world-shaping country so utterly reliant on conspirazoid bull****tery again.

I am pretty sure the LA times poll had Trump winning the national vote. That would put it as being off by more than most of the traditional polls.

HellSquirrel · 02-12-2016 09:32AM

Christy42 wrote: »

I am pretty sure the LA times poll had Trump winning the national vote. That would put it as being off by more than most of the traditional polls.

True, but it did indicate more support for Trump than other polls did. It's a bit apples and oranges as to whether one single polling unit was "more right", because you kinda need a pattern to indicate whether it was down to their actually being right or various other coincidences. If there's a whole batch that got it right overall, it's probably because they were right. One is a data point but it doesn't make a line.

seamus · 02-12-2016 09:44AM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Can someone explain the genius behind Donald's plan with the Carrier plant in Indiana? Instead of taxing companies that are moving jobs he's bribing them to keep some of the jobs.

How is he not over a barrel now for every company now who can say they're moving unless they get a cut?

Some negotiator. No wonder he's failed at business so many times.

This is pretty much it. He's not even in office yet and he's already being ridden by corporations.

But he doesn't really care about that. He's not interested in what's best for America or best for people. It's all about optics. This is all about making Trump great again.
He saved 1,000 jobs at Carrier. Hooray! Ignore the part where he's lost 1,000 jobs and cost Indiana millions of dollars just so 1,000 other people can temporarily hold onto their job.

The rest will be at it now. Plan to outsource 5,000 workers to Mexico, tell the US government it's actually 10,000, take a sweetheart deal worth a billion dollars and then outsource the 5,000 anyway.

Trump will claim to have saved millions of jobs at the end of his time and ignore the part where he paid companies billions of dollars for nothing.

Jelle1880 · 02-12-2016 09:46AM

oik wrote: »

They'd had those same people on dozens of times. They're clearly not interested in getting a balanced view. They saw these people embodied all the stereotypes and stuck with them.

Oh I get it, it's a ploy by CNN to make Trump supporters look dumb as ****.

I mean, it's not like these people are actually proving it themselves...

You really seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for this whole 'the big bad mainstream media' thing.

I saw Trevor Noah's interview yesterday with the new poster girl of the alt right, Tomi Lahren.

I had to laugh at out loud when she said she's a millennial and she doesn't like labels :pac:

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

Might get taken down soon.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 09:49AM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

True, but it did indicate more support for Trump than other polls did. It's a bit apples and oranges as to whether one single polling unit was "more right", because you kinda need a pattern to indicate whether it was down to their actually being right or various other coincidences. If there's a whole batch that got it right overall, it's probably because they were right. One is a data point but it doesn't make a line.

True. I was going off how far off the polls were in national vote % but you really need a group to make a trend.

Just ensuring people weren't going off the old if a poll predicted the winner it is perfect and pointless otherwise metric that I have seen on occasion (not from you to be fair).

pumpkin4life · 02-12-2016 10:47AM

Skommando wrote: »

The vast majority of polls and media predictions in the west were completely and utterly wrong. This was not just an accident. They've been royally caught out doing what they shouldn't be doing and slanting poll results and coverage. I don't like Trump, but the election result says a lot about the bias and agenda of the western media, who think they can control ordinary people, like some tin pot dictators, by constantly slanting coverage. And judging by their hysterical pedantic coverage of tweets instead of policy, they haven't leaned much - that ordinary people can see through this slant for what it is.

I think so too. I posted before about the survey design; what to look out for and why it's bollocks.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Things to look for in polls (phone I'll post an online one later):

If the margin of errors are higher than typically 5%, that's bad.

If the poll is unweighted (especially where you have more of one group than another), that's bad.

If the poll methodology asks to speak to the "youngest person in the house", especially if it is unweighted, that's bad.

If the poll does not take undecided voters into account, then that's bad.

If the question order is not randomised, then that's bad.

If the poll has more landline than cellphones, or a significant number anyway, that's bad.

If no methodology is published, then that's bad.

Personally I would pay more attention to the polls like the L.A Times

http://cesrusc.org/election/

or the IBD polls. Those are the polls which (imo) are despite their flaws, the most statistically sound. And why (alongside the social desirability effect) I think (tentatively) Trump is still going to win.

If I'm wrong, I guess the social desirability bias simply isn't as strong as i thought it was/is.

Also, throw in there the violation of the law of large numbers, tiny sample sizes and questions phrased to make people answer in a particular (psychological manipulation) manner. Forgot those two the last time.

These were blatant errors.

oik · 02-12-2016 02:27PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Do have evidence they were intentionally skewed or is this just more Trump supporter "opinion" to avoid needing evidence. Polls end up being a little off. What Hillary won the national vote by 2% or so and was predicted to win by 3-4%. Hardly that badly off. Remember Obama overshot his polls. Were they intentionally skewed in favour of Romney then?

Was the la times poll which over predicted the vote share Trump would get also intentionally skewed (but in favour of Trump)?

It was pointed out all throughout the campaign that they were oversampling certain groups and using Obama years as their benchmark for black turnout.

Polls by their very nature don't show "evidence" of skewing. The pollsters choose their assumptions and their assumptions were off. It's just crazy how they all made the same wrong assumptions. It's almost like they fell into groupthink.

oik · 02-12-2016 02:35PM

seamus wrote: »

This is pretty much it. He's not even in office yet and he's already being ridden by corporations.

But he doesn't really care about that. He's not interested in what's best for America or best for people. It's all about optics. This is all about making Trump great again.
He saved 1,000 jobs at Carrier. Hooray! Ignore the part where he's lost 1,000 jobs and cost Indiana millions of dollars just so 1,000 other people can temporarily hold onto their job.

The rest will be at it now. Plan to outsource 5,000 workers to Mexico, tell the US government it's actually 10,000, take a sweetheart deal worth a billion dollars and then outsource the 5,000 anyway.

Trump will claim to have saved millions of jobs at the end of his time and ignore the part where he paid companies billions of dollars for nothing.

The Carrier deal is worth 7 million over 10 years and saves 2,100 jobs. So it costs the government about 300 dollars a year per worker to keep them employed as opposed to having them on the dole.

he dismissed the CEO when Mr. Hayes responded that he had already built a new facility in Mexico. “Rent it. Sell it or knock it down. I don’t care.”

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 02:36PM

oik wrote: »

It was pointed out all throughout the campaign that they were oversampling certain groups and using Obama years as their benchmark for black turnout.

Polls by their very nature don't show "evidence" of skewing. The pollsters choose their assumptions and their assumptions were off. It's just crazy how they all made the same wrong assumptions. It's almost like they fell into groupthink.

Assumptions being off is a mistake. Over time these mistakes have not favoured either party on average.

I was arguing that there was no evidence of intentionally and willingly printing incorrect polls to show that Trump was losing the popular vote by more than he really was. That was Skommando 's claim and you have not backed up his claim.

Jelle1880 · 02-12-2016 02:59PM

oik wrote: »

The Carrier deal is worth 7 million over 10 years and saves 2,100 jobs. So it costs the government about 300 dollars a year per worker to keep them employed as opposed to having them on the dole.

What about the 1300 people who do lose their job ?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-deal-carrier-huntington-indiana-united-technologies-2016-12?r=US&IR=T

In his press conference today he said the Carrier employees misunderstood him saying he would save their jobs, that he was really using Carrier as a euphemism for saving jobs across the nation. What does that even mean ?

So basically 'he' managed to keep half the jobs and got -150% of the money back for it. Mr. Genius Businessman at work. And Indiana gets a nice big hole in it's budget.

pumpkin4life · 02-12-2016 03:23PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Assumptions being off is a mistake. Over time these mistakes have not favoured either party on average.

I was arguing that there was no evidence of intentionally and willingly printing incorrect polls to show that Trump was losing the popular vote by more than he really was. That was Skommando 's claim and you have not backed up his claim.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

seamus · 02-12-2016 03:30PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So basically 'he' managed to keep half the jobs and got -150% of the money back for it. Mr. Genius Businessman at work. And Indiana gets a nice big hole in it's budget.

It's worse than that. 800 people are being "saved" but so are 300 people who weren't going to be outsourced. The company will receive a tax bonus on 300 employees that they had no plan to move to Mexico.

Genius.

It's pathetic policy-buying and corruption. Exactly the kind of behaviour he was voted in to "change".

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 03:30PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/25/donald-trump/trump-absurd-claims-podesta-rigged-polls/

pumpkin4life · 02-12-2016 03:40PM

Christy42 wrote: »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/25/donald-trump/trump-absurd-claims-podesta-rigged-polls/

True. Oversampling is perfectly acceptable in statistics if the data is weighted correctly.

CNN and a number of the polls (not all of the though obviously), that Nate Silver were using were openly admitted about using unweighted data in their statistical methodology.

I mentioned this in the previous post there about unweighted data. If you don't correct for this, and a number of polls didn't, CNN were mad for this, then it is oversampling.

Therefore I'm verring that there was either (a) statistical incompetence or (b) out and out manipulation.

It's also why I think Nate Silver is a fraud.

A Little Pony · 02-12-2016 03:57PM

Some people still fighting the election, he is the new President. Get over it already, you don't always get what you want. I have experience of that in politics in this country.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 04:43PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

True. Oversampling is perfectly acceptable in statistics if the data is weighted correctly.

CNN and a number of the polls (not all of the though obviously), that Nate Silver were using were openly admitted about using unweighted data in their statistical methodology.

I mentioned this in the previous post there about unweighted data. If you don't correct for this, and a number of polls didn't, CNN were mad for this, then it is oversampling.

Therefore I'm verring that there was either (a) statistical incompetence or (b) out and out manipulation.

It's also why I think Nate Silver is a fraud.

Did they use un weighted data?

You can hardly call Silver a fraud after linking a zero hedge article which either does not know sampling or attempted to mislead by not mentioning that oversampling is a valid technique.

Also why did you use an article that you knew was misleading given at no point stated that oversampling can be a valid technique?

pumpkin4life · 02-12-2016 04:53PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Did they use un weighted data?

You can hardly call Silver a fraud after linking a zero hedge article which either does not know sampling or attempted to mislead by not mentioning that oversampling is a valid technique.

Also why did you use an article that you knew was misleading given at no point stated that oversampling can be a valid technique?

Yes, many of the poll makers did and mentioned it explicitly in their methodology.

Yes I can because Nate was creating forecasting models backed up by broken polls. He was applying high weights to junk polls like CNN, YouGov etc. If I and many others could see this, then someone as smart as him, a million times smarter than myself can see this, then I call fraud.

Because many of the polls were outright junk and I think they were oversampling, ie unweighted.

To be fair, maybe every the vast majority of poll makers are just wrong and don't know what they're doing.

But I seriously doubt it.

Jelle1880 · 02-12-2016 04:56PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Some people still fighting the election, he is the new President. Get over it already, you don't always get what you want. I have experience of that in politics in this country.

Don't you like people criticising the guy you seem to like a lot ?

Get over it, you don't always get what you want.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 04:57PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yes, many of the poll makers did and mentioned it explicitly in their methodology.

Yes I can because Nate was creating forecasting models backed up by broken polls. He was applying high weights to junk polls like CNN, YouGov etc. If I and many others could see this, then someone as smart as him can see this, then I call fraud.

Because many of the polls were outright junk and I think they were oversampling, ie unweighted.

To be fair, maybe every the vast majority of poll makers are just wrong and don't know what they're doing.

But I seriously doubt it.

Good links there. Why did you post a link as your entire initial argument when it heavily relied on the reader not understanding oversampling for them to fall for it?

You said you knew oversampling was a valid technique and yet posted an article that relied on the reader not knowing that. Why?

Why lead with an article with a misleading story? Had I not corrected it I doubt you would have.

pumpkin4life · 02-12-2016 05:13PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Good links there. Why did you post a link as your entire initial argument when it heavily relied on the reader not understanding oversampling for them to fall for it?

You said you knew oversampling was a valid technique and yet posted an article that relied on the reader not knowing that. Why?

Why lead with an article with a misleading story? Had I not corrected it I doubt you would have.

Confirmation bias I suppose where oversampling always includes unweighted data in my head, when it obviously doesn't. I got obsessed with these polls for a while, so I've had to look at a load of junk polls, a lot of which included unweighted sampling. My bad.

In fairness to yourself that ZH article oversampling can be interpreted as something far more sinister as it actually is.

ebbsy · 02-12-2016 05:28PM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Don't you like people criticising the guy you seem to like a lot ?

Get over it, you don't always get what you want.

Putting a smiley face at the end of a sentence does not turn you into a scientist.

What the chap is saying is that the election is over, Trump has won, and it is time for the losers to go back into their caves.

As I said already, maybe they will vote next time.

Christy42 · 02-12-2016 05:29PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Confirmation bias I suppose where oversampling always includes unweighted data in my head, when it obviously doesn't. I got obsessed with these polls for a while, so I've had to look at a load of junk polls, a lot of which included unweighted sampling. My bad.

In fairness to yourself that ZH article oversampling can be interpreted as something far more sinister as it actually is.

It can indeed be misinterpreted. I believe it is at.that point the evil msm would go to a pollster to ask about it. Anyway enough of that. People make mistakes in reading and posting so would you like to post anything else to back up your claim?

Here is a decent round up of what went wrong in polling including a link to Silver saying what could go wrong from before the election in an argument vs. Huff post (who had some terrible assumptions for aggregating polls it must be said). Go with the Atlantic article.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/507188/?client=ms-android-h3g-ie

El Presidente Trump

Comments