Final Stretch Election ThreadFollow

Start dancing, maybe that will work. Play a little music too.

On a subject not related to not understanding what an irrational number is, I'm getting very very tired of political adds.

how can we? you're so much smarter than us

No, because you all seem to fail to differentiate polling for curiousity and taking results as a fact. In any sense, I didn't say that no surveys are accurate, but there's a difference between statistics and math.

Just so people don't think I'm being a douche, I'm not responding to anyone using an Admin account due to previous instances.

hahahahaha. I did nuke a post once because he attacked me as an admin instead of as a poster and it pissed me off. Stupid response on my part of course, but I did apologize.

I've just been asking questions for the most part alma, why don't you answer them? Besides you've responded to lots of my posts in the past, what's the difference with this thread? Is it just because you don't have any way of showing this math you keep referring to and this is a convenient way of dodging the question?

Here someone copy and paste my post so he answers it.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:04pm by Xsarus

Looking up on the irrational vs rational and pretty sure I confused terminology..on fraction form vs decimal form.

You get a rateup for that alma.

@al, true.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2012 7:11pm by Xsarus

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.

It's about the Casey/Smith race. They have an (outside 20/80) shot at winning that, so motivating GOP voters there is useful. Romney only wins PA in scenarios where he also wins MI and OH. There's no electoral math reason to campaign there at all.

This is at least the third time he's used the "those statistics aren't legitimate because you didn't poll everyone in the multiverse" "argument," so yeah it's quite intentional.

how much more?

At what percentage does it become a "mathematical guarantee"?

Please cite sources or show mathematical proof.

Did you read any of what I just wrote? You don't need to 100%, How many times do we count every vote before declaring a president? We only care about states that carry enough delegates to make a difference. Those other votes get counted, but no one cares because they wont change the outcome of the race. Just like pulling the 51st blue marble in my example. The remaining marbles are irrelevant. You can count them if you want, but they wont matter.

No matter what proof you might show, it isn't mathematically possible. I'm referring to a guarantee, not estimation. Even your 99% estimation in this case is false. Anything can happen between today and Tuesday to change the outcome. These polls are literally only good for the moment that they are released and then are no longer good anymore. Hence on why they are pointless.


Read above

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 4:14am by Almalieque

Yeah but we're not talking about a bag with a population of 100, we're talking about the US voting population.


So using the voting population (130 million) what percent would you find to be an appropriate sample to accurately reflect the population?

Holy shit, you have a math degree? Ask for a refund.

Given that you somehow think math and statistics are the same subject, I don't think I'm the confused one here.

No, that's seriously the answer... once again that's the difference between math and statistics. The whole benefit of statistics is not having to wait till that point to get an answer. However, you can't claim that's a mathematical proof, because it isn't. It's statistics. No matter what the polls show today,there's no telling what will happen until those 270 delegates are counted. That's why the only guaranteed thing is the 270 delegates (assuming my basic knowledge of the electoral college is accurate). The counting isn't done, but anything more is irrelevant.

Missed this post on accident.



That depends on your definition of "throwing them out". I think they represent elements of truth, but nothing that is accurate enough for me be wager anything. There's a reason why these political polls are done so much, because everyday it changes. After events such as the debates, the hurricane, Bengazi, unemployment, etc., the polls will change. So, if they will change every day until the day of the election, why should I even care enough to make a statement of who is going to win?

If that were the case, we wouldn't be polling everyday. We would just ride off our initial predictions, but since they can change at any given moment, they are only good for snapshots of the race. "What if the election were held today". If anything, that helps the candidates more than anyone.



Because the main benefit of statistics is to get make educated predictions using math, you aren't mathematically proving anything. It's relevant because people are taking these estimations as proof as if it's impossible for the predictions to sway the other way.

.

I'm going to avoid the statistics argument as I'll freely admit I don't know sh*t about the subject.

Having said that: I DO know about grammer, though, and if you, Alma, type "one in the same" one more @#%^ing time you had best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord as I am growing inclined to hunt you down and beat you to death with an unabridged, omnibus collection of "Useful and Common Phrases".

The phrase is " one and the same".

We poll everyday because the numbers change everyday, not because of the inaccuracy of polls.

You're making it painfully obvious that you don't understand probability. Take a statistics class. I'm sure you can find one for free. One of the magical things you'll learn is how a small, purely random sample of a population can accurately represent the entire population.

Are you really this dense? There is a difference between Statistics and math. I've been consistent this entire time.

Just because you used math somewhere in your process does not make it a mathematical proof. Crap, countering something wrong using only math isn't even guaranteed to be a mathematical proof. As I figured, you fail to know the difference between statistics and math or proofing for that matter.



That is my idiocy.. I apologize. Thank you.

You've probably taken more advanced math classes than me too, but look how badly you screwed up the whole irrational number thing.

What 'exactly' did you say again?