Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Final Stretch Election ThreadFollow

#177 Nov 03 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
No. You are wrong.

Go look up how statistical models and polling works.
____________________________
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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#180 Nov 03 2012 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
*****
12,636 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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".
#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
*****
12,636 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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,360 posts
Nate Silver was on Bill Maher October 26.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#196 Nov 03 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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
#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!
*****
16,930 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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: 43 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (43)