Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Final Stretch Election ThreadFollow

#152 Nov 02 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone think that this race will be as close as it's being stated? I want to know the who the next president will be before I go to sleep, not find out 3 days later...


IMO, it's either going to be really close or it will be a blowout for Romney.


Incorrect. Even if Romney wins the popular vote by a percent or two, all Obama has to do is take Ohio or Florida and maintain the typical blue states and its a wash. There's no forseeable scenario that would result in a blowout for Romney. Once again, you're delusional.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#153 Nov 02 2012 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts

The Republicans that are so sure of Romney's victory should buy a ton of shares on Intrade.com. You know, if they actually believed what they espouse.

Edit: Actually I just went to Intrade and tried to buy 10 shares for Obama's victory (betting $66 to win $100). Unfortunately they require a bunch of documentation to verify your account, and then you have to do a bank wire transfer. I'll see if I can manage all that tomorrow.



Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 12:59am by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#154 Nov 03 2012 at 12:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They're waiting until Monday night to maximize their profits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Nov 03 2012 at 4:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
622 posts
trickybeck wrote:

The Republicans that are so sure of Romney's victory should buy a ton of shares on Intrade.com. You know, if they actually believed what they espouse.

Edit: Actually I just went to Intrade and tried to buy 10 shares for Obama's victory (betting $66 to win $100). Unfortunately they require a bunch of documentation to verify your account, and then you have to do a bank wire transfer. I'll see if I can manage all that tomorrow.



Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 12:59am by trickybeck

If you try to buy shares for Romney, will they still require ID and documentation, or is it only likely Democrats that need a birth certificate?
#156Almalieque, Posted: Nov 03 2012 at 6:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because the average person that I've seen who buys Apple are clueless on technology and will buy whatever is being advertised as the "new hotness". They are accustomed to being told what they can and cannot do by Apple so they go along.
#157 Nov 03 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Sandy is going to hand pa to romney.


I wouldn't be so sure.

For one, it's not being reported on so much, which surprises me since past storms have been huge news without much justification, and one of the biggest in recent memory comes and @#%^s up half of the East Coast, and there's next to nothing(in comparison).

Second, were it being reported on more heavily, Obama would have scored a PR victory due to the fact that he was on the ground in NJ and NY within 48 hours of the storm. On top of that, the federal response has been a fair bit quicker than say, Bush's and the government's response time after Katrina. Hell, FEMA had 1500 people on the ground in the affected areas as of the 29th, many more now.

Addding to this, Romney's statement that he wanted to make major cuts in FEMA can only be biting him in the ass at this point.

If anything, the storm may have handed the election to Obama.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#158 Nov 03 2012 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wired Magazine on why predictions and statistical models are necessary and good for democracy
Wired wrote:
“The pollsters tell us what’s happening now,” conservative columnist David Brooks told Politico, trashing Silver. “When they start projecting, they’re getting into silly land.” In the same article, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough added, “And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops, and microphones for the next 10 days – because they’re jokes.”

David Brooks is mistaken and Joe Scarborough is wrong. Because while pollsters can’t project, statistical models can, and do … and they do some predictions very well.

We rely on statistical models for many decisions every single day, including, crucially: weather, medicine, and pretty much any complex system in which there’s an element of uncertainty to the outcome. In fact, these are the same methods by which scientists could tell Hurricane Sandy was about to hit the United States many days in advance.

Dismissing predictive methods is not only incorrect; in the case of electoral politics, it’s politically harmful.

Monsieur Driftwood wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Sandy is going to hand pa to romney.
I wouldn't be so sure.

The most recent aggregate on RCP for Pennsylvania (including polls taken after Sandy) is +4.6 Obama. The aggregate of polls taken since Oct 10th (post first debate) is +4.75 Obama. There has been no movement in PA for the past month and the idea that Romney will flip the state five points in a weekend is ludicrous.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 8:49am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Nov 03 2012 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Anyone think that this race will be as close as it's being stated? I want to know the who the next president will be before I go to sleep, not find out 3 days later...


IMO, it's either going to be really close or it will be a blowout for Romney. Depends on whether the weighting issue really is as significant as it appears. If it isn't, it'll be close. If it is, it wont be. Hell, if the weighting issue is as significant as some conservatives are suggesting, Romney will easily win all the battleground states, and pick up several that are currently considered safe for Obama. I don't happen to think it's that huge a factor, but I think it's going to be more of a factor that some think. I suspect that many liberals will be looking at the election results on Tuesday and crying foul because the polls just couldn't have been that far off, so something must have happened.

Believe it. The polls really can be that far off.


gbaji wrote:
Believe it!


Well, now we know why he is always wrong.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#160 Nov 03 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Quote:
Because the average person that I've seen who buys votes Apple are clueless on technology politics and will buy vote whatever is being advertised as the "new hotness".
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#161Almalieque, Posted: Nov 03 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry.. you still must be new at this. I'm sure you meant something insightful.
#162 Nov 03 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Just a small fly in your ointment, Alma. Forget Florida. If the election comes down to Ohio, we may not find out who won the Presidency until 10 days after the 6th. According to the law that is now in effect, anybody who emailed a request for an absentee ballot and decided to either postpone mailing it in or changed their mind and wanted to go to the polling station in person, will be given a provisional ballot to vote with to prevent voter fraud where someone would vote twice-- once online and once in person. The law states that 10 days will pass before these ballots are opened and counted.

The number of possible provisional ballots that may be in play? Up to 350,000 according to the official Ohio election thingamajigger agency. That is a very large statisical segment of Ohio's population. This would make Florida's hanging chads of 2004 seem positively... none-consequencial by comparison.

At this rate our elections are going the route of Third World banana republic's farces.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#163 Nov 03 2012 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nate Silver on margins of error, polling bias and Romney's chances on Tuesday.
Quote:
Although the fact that Mr. Obama held the lead in so many polls is partly coincidental — there weren’t any polls of North Carolina on Friday, for instance, which is Mr. Romney’s strongest battleground state — they nevertheless represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a “tossup.” A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other — any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)

Instead, Mr. Romney will have to hope that the coin isn’t fair, and instead has been weighted to Mr. Obama’s advantage. In other words, he’ll have to hope that the polls have been biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. (I recognize that ‘bias’ is a loaded term in political contexts. I’ll explain what I mean by it in a moment.)
[...]
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.

Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.


Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 11:05am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Nov 03 2012 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
Quote:
People are going to vote anyway and a winner will be selected one way or the other. People aren't going to start preparing for a Romney Ryan regime if predictions say that they will win. They will continue as normal and see what happens on election day. There is no gained benefit.


Businesses, stock traders, and various institutions doe have have a gained benefit, but most organized groups prepare contingency plans.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#165 Nov 03 2012 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
Quote:
We saw hurricane Sandy moving in this direction, so while it's still a prediction, it was highly unlikely that it would change course or do something other than what it was demonstrating.


Except that's exactly what it did. It hooked due to intersection with other systems in a way that wouldn't have been predictable 20-30 years ago.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#166 Nov 03 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Alma's response was just... bizarre. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Nov 03 2012 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
We saw hurricane Sandy moving in this direction, so while it's still a prediction, it was highly unlikely that it would change course or do something other than what it was demonstrating.


Except that's exactly what it did. It hooked due to intersection with other systems in a way that wouldn't have been predictable 20-30 years ago.


Yup, See figure 2...

Jophiel wrote:
Alma's response was just... bizarre. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.


You argue about hurricane prediction software. Smiley: nod


Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 9:26am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#168 Nov 03 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Almalieque wrote:
When it comes to voting, we know for a fact that we're only sampling a small fraction of the population and that the unknown factor is huge.

And amazingly, statisticians have methods for determining, with high precision, what that unknown factor is. You actually only need a sample size that's a small fraction of the population to get 99% confidence.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#169 Nov 03 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
When the unknown factor is due random error, of course. Errors like not plugging in your cable all the way and announcing you've somehow broken the speed of light aren't covered under the current policy. Smiley: wink

Yes, I need to get out more...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#170 Nov 03 2012 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma's flat out rejection of polls is always amusing.

For instance, 538 was right on 49 out of 50 states in 2008. That seems like it should never ever happen if polls are only correct due to random chance.

You can make the argument that all the polls are biased towards democrats, but that's about it at this point.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 1:49pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#171 Nov 03 2012 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Alma's flat out rejection of polls is always amusing.

For instance, 538 was right on 49 out of 50 states in 2008. That seems like it should never ever happen if polls are only correct due to random chance.

You can make the argument that all the polls are biased towards democrats, but that's about it at this point.



Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#172 Nov 03 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,856 posts
Samira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Alma's flat out rejection of polls is always amusing.

For instance, 538 was right on 49 out of 50 states in 2008. That seems like it should never ever happen if polls are only correct due to random chance.

You can make the argument that all the polls are biased towards democrats, but that's about it at this point.



Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that!



Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#173 Nov 03 2012 at 12:57 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Samira wrote:
Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that!


But we can stop it, right?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#174 Nov 03 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, just use the force. duh.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#175 Nov 03 2012 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, just use the force. duh.


Thats violation of Disney's trademark right.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#176 Nov 03 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Quite ironic when a person posts a survey on this site, it gets instantly "nuked" with false answers and then you all turn around and instantly follow every other poll as if the rest of the world isn't as equally bothered to fill out a survey accurately.

Another John Stewart reference...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-10-2012/frequently-asked-questions-

Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
We saw hurricane Sandy moving in this direction, so while it's still a prediction, it was highly unlikely that it would change course or do something other than what it was demonstrating.


Except that's exactly what it did. It hooked due to intersection with other systems in a way that wouldn't have been predictable 20-30 years ago.



Except we predicted it and our prediction came true. Once we saw that combination and the path, people braced it and made changes to their lives. NO ONE IS CHANGING their daily lives based on a poll they see on television, therefore the results are pointless. If you're just going to "wait and see", then there's no benefit other than personal interest and curiosity.

Jophiel wrote:
Alma's response was just... bizarre. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.


I would start with explaining how it was bizarre? Read above. The comparison is ridiculous because people aren't affected by these predictions and actions aren't taken in support of them as they are with weather.

trickybeck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
When it comes to voting, we know for a fact that we're only sampling a small fraction of the population and that the unknown factor is huge.

And amazingly, statisticians have methods for determining, with high precision, what that unknown factor is. You actually only need a sample size that's a small fraction of the population to get 99% confidence.



I never said that you couldn't predict with a sample. I said that it is mathematically impossible to accurately predict an outcome with a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of the population. There is a difference between statistics and mathematics.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#177 Nov 03 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
No. You are wrong.

Go look up how statistical models and polling works.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#178 Nov 03 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT

Instead of picking a segment made purely for humor, since you're on a Jon Stewart kick, you could have linked to his interview with Mr. Silver. Or, if you really want, the extended interview located in the side bar "related videos" section.

Edit: Actually, I take that back since I was thinking of a different time I saw him somewhere talking more about polling. This interview is more into campaign micro-targeting. The interview is interesting though so I'll leave my links up.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 4:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Nov 03 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
No. You are wrong.

Go look up how statistical models and polling works.



Your claim contradicts math. Your only counter would be a proof on how less than 1/2 of 1% accurately depicts the remaining 99%. Since it's mathematically impossible and the definition of statistics supports that, I would like for you prove that. You can ridicule me in your Nobel speech.

Jophiel wrote:

Instead of picking a segment made purely for humor, since you're on a Jon Stewart kick, you could have linked to his interview with Mr. Silver. Or, if you really want, the extended interview located in the side bar "related videos" section.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 4:00pm by Jophiel


The point was to show the polls of what people see and not to show how polling works. What's the point of an accurate poll if it gets saturated with contradicting polls? How can you say that polling matters if you can't even differentiate an accurate poll from a bogus polls. Although that was a comedic skit, those polls were meant to be taken seriously.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#180 Nov 03 2012 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I never said that you couldn't predict with a sample. I said that it is mathematically impossible to accurately predict an outcome with a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of the population. There is a difference between statistics and mathematics.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Plug in 1 for confidence interval. That means you want the result to be +/- 1% margin of error.

Check 99% for confidence level. That means that the you want the sample's result to fall within the specified confidence level 99% of the time. I.E, if you repeated the sample 100 times, 99 times you'd be within that +/- 1% of the true number.

Enter 225000000 for population, which is approximately the eligible voting population of the US.

You will see that the sample size needed for this level of confidence is only 16,640. This is only .007% of the population.


These numbers aren't some crazy magic they invented just now. This math was first developed like 75 years ago, and involves some intense calculus, and you can double-check it with experiments and computer simulations.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#181 Nov 03 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because (and this does come up in the interview) the point isn't to hang on each individual number. You get a large enough base that the outliers come out in the wash. My favorite quote from Silver was a tweet he made saying "The point of examining poll aggregates is that you don't need to litigate each individual poll". So when Gbaji starts hooting that some poll was D+5 and he says it really should be D+2 or whatever, whether or not he's even accurate sort of doesn't matter because there's so many polls at this point (Silver says in the before linked blog entry that Ohio is a sample size of 17,000+ people right now) that the static gets largely worked out. Likewise, saying "Poll A says O+2 but Poll B says R+1 so no one can be right!!" is foolish because it's not about just polls A & B.

Now, granted, Gbaji wants everyone to believe that every poll is flawed because that's the only way he can point to a Romney win. So be it. And you want to continue to insist that polling and poll aggregates can't be accurate because "1/2 of 1%!!" and that's fine as well. Previous election results don't support you and Gbaji is clutching at strands of hope but I can't say it affects me much.

Romney can potentially win. I don't think he will but even a 1-in-5 chance is a 1-in-5 chance. But the odds are well against him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#182 Nov 03 2012 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma, you keep saying math does work that way when the way polls work and statistical representation work are based on math...

Here's a suggestion. Since math 'doesn't work that way' Can you please explain the math that shows this doesn't work?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#184 Nov 03 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I never said that you couldn't predict with a sample. I said that it is mathematically impossible to accurately predict an outcome with a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of the population. There is a difference between statistics and mathematics.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Plug in 1 for confidence interval. That means you want the result to be +/- 1% margin of error.

Check 99% for confidence level. That means that the you want the sample's result to fall within the specified confidence level 99% of the time. I.E, if you repeated the sample 100 times, 99 times you'd be within that +/- 1% of the true number.

Enter 225000000 for population, which is approximately the eligible voting population of the US.

You will see that the sample size needed for this level of confidence is only 16,640. This is only .007% of the population.


These numbers aren't some crazy magic they invented just now. This math was first developed like 75 years ago, and involves some intense calculus, and you can double-check it with experiments and computer simulations.


You do realize that there is a difference between statistics and math right? Statistics use Math, They aren't one in the same. It is mathematically impossible to accurately determine the outcome by taking a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of a population. At best, it is an educated guess. I'm not saying the poll will never be right, but that's the point of statistics, if it weren't ever right, then what would be the purpose of statistics? But, once you crossover into the mathematics domain, it simply isn't true anymore. It's a middle school concept.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#185 Nov 03 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
you keep going on about the mathematics, so please explain how mathematics disproves the process as opposed to being the core of it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#186 Nov 03 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
on a side note Silver is going to be back on the daily show on the 7th. I'm interested in watching that one.

Alma, go read the signal and the noise.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#187 Nov 03 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between statistics and math right? Statistics use Math, They aren't one in the same. It is mathematically impossible to accurately determine the outcome by taking a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of a population. At best, it is an educated guess. I'm not saying the poll will never be right, but that's the point of statistics, if it weren't ever right, then what would be the purpose of statistics? But, once you crossover into the mathematics domain, it simply isn't true anymore. It's a middle school concept.

Your an moran.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#188 Nov 03 2012 at 4:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You do realize that there is a difference between statistics and math right? Statistics use Math, They aren't one in the same. It is mathematically impossible to accurately determine the outcome by taking a sample that is less than 1/2 of 1% of a population. At best, it is an educated guess. I'm not saying the poll will never be right, but that's the point of statistics, if it weren't ever right, then what would be the purpose of statistics? But, once you crossover into the mathematics domain, it simply isn't true anymore. It's a middle school concept.

Your an moran.


Please define a "moran".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#189 Nov 03 2012 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
on a side note Silver is going to be back on the daily show on the 7th. I'm interested in watching that one.

Be more interesting if Romney is elected Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Nov 03 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
on a side note Silver is going to be back on the daily show on the 7th. I'm interested in watching that one.

Be more interesting if Romney is elected Smiley: laugh
Totally. If Obama wins it'll be somewhat, yep, yep, I'm awesome.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#191 Nov 03 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Almalieque wrote:
trickybeck wrote:

Your an moran.


Please define a "moran".

Congratulations, you identified 1 out of the 3 purposely incorrect words. You're 33% smart - that's math!
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#192Almalieque, Posted: Nov 03 2012 at 4:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 1/3 isn't 33%
#193 Nov 03 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#194 Nov 03 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Almalieque wrote:

1/3 isn't 33%

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 12:33am by Almalieque


trickybeck wrote:
Your an moran.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#195 Nov 03 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Nate Silver was on Bill Maher October 26.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#196 Nov 03 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Criminy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

1/3 isn't 33%

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 12:33am by Almalieque


trickybeck wrote:
Your an moran.


Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#197 Nov 03 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes

Any port in a storm.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Nov 03 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Criminy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

1/3 isn't 33%

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 12:33am by Almalieque


trickybeck wrote:
Your an moran.


Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes
1/3 is irrational?

1 and 3 are both integers...
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#199 Nov 03 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,032 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes


You could at least make it hard... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#200 Nov 03 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Pretty sure 1/3 is irrational. But, go ahead, prove me wrong..Smiley: rolleyes


You could at least make it hard... Smiley: rolleyes


You can get help with that. just sayin.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#201 Nov 03 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
This makes my day. Spend all day saying "the math doesn't allow that" and then demonstrate a fundamental lack of math knowledge. Wow.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT
Kastigir, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (45)