PC Principal: Get Off My Lawn

[Andalusian girls]

couldn't I have polled every county in a state and attributed a % error to the result relative to the chance of me randomly having picked not a perfectly representative sample of the actual total population and feed that into my calculation of % chance to win that state for a candidate?
and the larger the sample of a county the closer I am to reproducing the actual election, in a poll, so couldn't I, absent of fancy models (except for the singular stat technique on sampling populations), have a poll that accurately predicted trump to win?

surely some organization polled like that, and still got fkd?

There's really no evidence of any unaccounted for biases in polling? Or, that polling in general (maybe the way it's done, idk) could have a bias today?

you may be drastically overestimating the resources pollsters have. most polls consist of a few hundred people, maybe a thousand, and state polls are usually conducted by polling bodies that are in-state. as far as i know no single pollster even conducted their own polls in all 50 states, none the less every county of every state, and none the less enough times to produce a body of data that could produce trendlines, which are vitally important for elections given no poll can measure the movement that occurs between the final poll and election day itself.

and p sure no one here said there's never bias in polling (there are many examples where changing the wording of a poll slightly produces significantly different results), that polls are infallible. all that was said was that folks saying "2016 shows polling is useless and wrong!" don't understand polling very well. the presidential polls attempted to predict the winner of the popular vote, and they did, with a 1.1% margin of error which is very low, lower than usual. the failure came from analysts/models not accounting for the electoral college properly (outside of 538).

[6souls]

http://www.citypages.com/news/read-p...sies/440805093

Former MN sportswriter loses his shit on twitter about Hillary Clinton (whom he equates to John Wayne Gracy) and Liberals in general.

http://www.citypages.com/restaurants...asts/440749573

MN restaurant fires two employees for dressing up as Nazi soldiers while still in the building.

[Day]

All of those tweets were weak except this one

Yes, but seriously if there was a pussy poll, you don' think we're talking at least 80 percent?

— Tom Powers (@TomPowersPP) August 16, 2017

[Day]

and I dont even know what it's about but it's p. good

[archibaldcrane]

The biggest problem with 2016 polling was a historically large percentage of 3rd party and undecided voters. Usually 3rd parties poll between 50%-100% higher than their actual vote share (so if 2% say they are voting for Gary Johnson it's probably 1-1.3%) but the question of what to do with undecideds is open. There's no reliable way of guessing how they will vote.

Even in Wisconsin, arguably the largest upset of 2016, the polls NAILED Hillary's vote share (off by 0.2% in the RCP average.)

But there was like 11% of voters in the final week saying either undecided or 3rd party, and they broke for Trump in the booth.

Polls were telling everyone that there was a large group of people who hadn't made up their minds, but people just look at the decideds.

That huge undecided share is also why people suggest Comey's 11th hour fuckery was so important - it solidified the final week as an anti-Hillary news cycle when that massive group of undecideds was, well, deciding.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[6souls]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...harlottesville

Spotifiy removes music by white supremacists in NA in response to Charlottesville. Still available to stream elsewhere in the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40960053

Cloudfare terminates it's account with the Daily Stormer, leaving the website vulnerable to DDoS.

[Thunder]

you may be drastically overestimating the resources pollsters have. most polls consist of a few hundred people, maybe a thousand, and state polls are usually conducted by polling bodies that are in-state. as far as i know no single pollster even conducted their own polls in all 50 states, none the less every county of every state, and none the less enough times to produce a body of data that could produce trendlines, which are vitally important for elections given no poll can measure the movement that occurs between the final poll and election day itself.

and p sure no one here has ever said there's never bias in polling, that polls are infallible. all that was said was that folks saying "2016 shows polling is useless and wrong!" don't understand polling very well. the presidential polls attempted to predict the winner of the popular vote, and they did, with a 1.1% margin of error which is very low, lower than usual.

hm, I assumed that there would be enough value to be had in some organization pouring resources into key-states like florida to get a very accurate figure come election day. Especially since we saw how much fame (which translates to a lot of money, I'm assuming) nate silver and 538 got in recent years for being so good at predictions

anyway, yeah, I see the train of logic in the latter half of your post in the recent exchange now:
The polls on confederate statues could be biased, but 2016 shouldn't be used as evidence that recent polls could be biased

[Ragnus]

http://www.citypages.com/news/read-p...sies/440805093

Former MN sportswriter loses his shit on twitter about Hillary Clinton (whom he equates to John Wayne Gracy) and Liberals in general.

Is there something wrong with their water or something? Honestly, between that sportscaster and the police lately.

[Dimmauk]

http://www.citypages.com/news/read-p...sies/440805093

Former MN sportswriter loses his shit on twitter about Hillary Clinton (whom he equates to John Wayne Gracy) and Liberals in general.

http://www.citypages.com/restaurants...asts/440749573

MN restaurant fires two employees for dressing up as Nazi soldiers while still in the building.

I lol'd at the professional victims part. Especially after the Alt right crying about fucking statues and being replaced by Jews.

[Tarage]

I thought the opposite of the Alt-Right was the Ctrl-Left. That makes more sense to me, given their message.

[Niiro]

[Guitarman]

Now that's just going too far.

[Marootsoobutsu]

If you think there was an opportunity for this "love Trumps hate" strategy to succeed with the white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville, that's fine. I just disagree. I think those strategies with your neighbors, relatives, coworkers, etc can be quite successful. But when a torchlit mob arrives to intimidate and exhibit hatred, showing up to tell them they can go fuck themselves isn't for them. It's for the people they are trying to intimidate - a show of force that there are people who will speak up for them, even fight if necessary.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I think that's the point where it's *most* necessary. That you show that all the bluster and bravado amounts to nothing. You give folks like that a fight, they take it, and they feel like they win. You disarm them with consistent displays of courtesy, kindness, and helpfulness, and... what do they suddenly have as ammunition? It's not an instant panacea, but it's one that works over time. You defeat their assumptions, not by tolerating their views, but by treating them as people. Do they deserve it? In a real sense, no-- but it's not about what they deserve. It's about what makes things better for everyone. You show up, be a presence, and be a *counter* presence-- not violence under a different name, but a positive force of anti-violence-- that does more to help everyone.

The only time violence-- or even a show of violence-- is acceptable is in the prevention of violence. A bunch of Nazis start beating up a Jew? Yeah, go interpose yourself, stop the violence, get the police. A bunch of Nazis walking down the street, insulting Jews and getting their Rah Rah on with signs and hate? Offer 'em a sandwich, a bottle of water, and a conversation. Showing up with a show of force, building a barricade of bodies for them to smash through-- that exacerbates violence instead of quelling it.

[Cantih]

Col. Sanders statues in Japan ain't nothin' to fuck with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Colonel

[archibaldcrane]

I think that's the point where it's *most* necessary. That you show that all the bluster and bravado amounts to nothing. You give folks like that a fight, they take it, and they feel like they win. You disarm them with consistent displays of courtesy, kindness, and helpfulness, and... what do they suddenly have as ammunition? It's not an instant panacea, but it's one that works over time. You defeat their assumptions, not by tolerating their views, but by treating them as people. Do they deserve it? In a real sense, no-- but it's not about what they deserve. It's about what makes things better for everyone. You show up, be a presence, and be a *counter* presence-- not violence under a different name, but a positive force of anti-violence-- that does more to help everyone.

The only time violence-- or even a show of violence-- is acceptable is in the prevention of violence. A bunch of Nazis start beating up a Jew? Yeah, go interpose yourself, stop the violence, get the police. A bunch of Nazis walking down the street, insulting Jews and getting their Rah Rah on with signs and hate? Offer 'em a sandwich, a bottle of water, and a conversation. Showing up with a show of force, building a barricade of bodies for them to smash through-- that exacerbates violence instead of quelling it.

Yeah. I'm not giving nazis a sandwich.

[Day]

stay strong archi

[Marootsoobutsu]

Yeah. I'm not giving nazis a sandwich.

Why?

Make a distinction between the ideology and the person. I get that the ideology is as hateful as it is hate-filled, but the person behind it can change-- and often *will* change-- if provided a reason. Hating them back isn't a reason; it's a verification of your ignorance (in their mind).

You wanna take the rug out from under them, be as kind as they are hateful. Be *kinder*. Not because they deserve it, but because you are better than them.

[archibaldcrane]

Why?

Because they're nazis.

[GoggleHead]

I have people in my Facebook feed trying to pretend Antifa is anything but organized political violence.

Wut?

[Headspace]

Because they're nazis.

When they go low, we go high

*and let them continue to amass influence and political power*