One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#551

Post by Falling3 » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #549

Falling3 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign You're misframing this. The conspiracy theory is not that Trump is taking on the deep state; it's the existence of the deep state to begin with. >If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers an…

Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)? Isn't it true that many US laws are created by regulatory agencies of various kinds, and then implemented/enforced by unelected judges? The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an…

Well, no. Laws are only created by Congress. Regulatory agencies can create non-trivial policies, and you might want to argue that the distinction between a regulatory policy and law is minimal or non-existent. But regulatory agencies are never what proponents of the deep state are discussing in my experience. Likewise with judges - and if we wanted to somehow include judges in the deep state, we have the problem that Trump has at this point appointed more federal judges in a single term than any other president and more SCOTUS judges than any other president. If judges are part of the deep state, Trump can not in any way be said to be fighting against it.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#552

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #549

Falling3 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign You're misframing this. The conspiracy theory is not that Trump is taking on the deep state; it's the existence of the deep state to begin with. >If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers an…

Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)? Isn't it true that many US laws are created by regulatory agencies of various kinds, and then implemented/enforced by unelected judges? The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an…

> Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)?

No,.that belief was a side effect of (1) the fact that it was, to a certain extent true that her nomination was largely a product of elite arrangements and structural advantage, and (2) the deep and broad unpopularity that was the actual reason she ran aground in what should have been the easiest election for Democrats in a long time.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#553

Post by vkou » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

mastazi wrote: post #541

vkou wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two friends whose parents have gone down first the anti-vaxx, then the flat earth, and more recently the QAnon rabbit hole. They describe it like losing a family member to a drug addiction, or a cult. Quality time with their own family is no longer a thing that can happen, because how dare the children suggest that basic pandemic precautions be taken, or even think of supporting the vast pedophilic democratic…

> Pray tell, how should they bridge that chasm? This is a serious question. It's not a serious question, it's a self righteous rhetorical question.

Instead of grousing about the tone of the question, could you answer it?

I'd be happy to forward your suggestions to them - they'd appreciate being able to visit their parents every once in a while without being subjected to a firehose of crazy.

Yesterday's flavor of that unsolicited firehose was "They called those four states for Trump, and Biden is at 215 now."

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#554

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #371

edmundsauto wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, rural areas receive more federal support, but it’s farm subsidies, not visible infrastructure.

Yes, the role of government support in their lives does not take on as much of a visible role. However I'd also like to comment on a common argument that Blue States/Cities pay for Rural areas. Yes, red states receive a disproportionate amount of federal aid, but that is something everyone benefits from. For example, farm subsidies keep food costs low for everyone in the country. Low income states with a high proport…

I agree with your second paragraph, with the caveat that it would be nice for the direct beneficiaries of these funds to acknowledge the help they are receiving. That's my beef - not the subsidy, but the illusions held by the people receiving it.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#555

Post by edmundsauto » Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

pasttense01 wrote: post #407

edmundsauto wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, rural areas receive more federal support, but it’s farm subsidies, not visible infrastructure.

Nonsense. Consider where government jobs are--and the massive economic effects of those jobs: there are substantially more federal government jobs (on a per capita basis) in the cities than the rural areas.

I'm open to an argument, but citing jobs is unrelated to whether federal money flows into or out of a state relative to their income taxes.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#556

Post by FromTheId » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:04 AM UTC

jungletime wrote: post #257

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD. "Inventor of Email" Analyzed the results in Michigan and came to the conclusion that 69k votes were taken from Trump and given to Biden. His reasoning here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztu5Y5obWPk&feature=youtu.be

This guy's analysis was straight-up dumb.

Here's an in-depth breakdown of the trickery he's employing: https://kabir-naim.medium.com/dr-shiva-ayyadurai-the-danger-...

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#557

Post by filistine » Sat, Nov 14, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

kgin wrote: post #538

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as "external experience", this is just called reality. Experience = reality + human filter (mood, prejudice, ...) Experience is a human concept, therefore it is necessarily subjective. Humans are not machines. Thus "lived experience" is just an empty phrase, invented to give a virtuous appearance to prejudice.

It's a totally normal thing in english to add redundancy to emphasize. Global pandemic isn't wrong and nobody has to pay more to use two words instead of one. Lived experience is the same thing. Nothing wrong with emphasis.

kgin says *>"It's a totally normal thing in english to add redundancy to emphasize. Global pandemic isn't wrong and nobody has to pay more to use two words instead of one. Lived experience is the same thing. Nothing wrong with emphasis."

So just as we can use "pandemic" instead of "global pandemic", so we can use "experience" instead of "lived experience"? OK with me.

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#558

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 15, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #553

mastazi wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pray tell, how should they bridge that chasm? This is a serious question. It's not a serious question, it's a self righteous rhetorical question.

Instead of grousing about the tone of the question, could you answer it? I'd be happy to forward your suggestions to them - they'd appreciate being able to visit their parents every once in a while without being subjected to a firehose of crazy. Yesterday's flavor of that unsolicited firehose was "They called those four states for Trump, and Biden is at 215 now."

[deleted]

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#559

Post by knaq » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #357

ineedasername wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there's often a trend I've noticed in some of my own down voted comments that an initial negative turns positive as curious readers want to see what was so bad, realize it was nothing, and upvote.

In this case I'm still not sure if people are downvoting because they don't like the data, don't like me not being convinced about the blood libel parts, think Pizzagate was real or what.

The blood libel stuff is absurd. Unfortunately, we have blackmailed politicians. So many of them have been caught doing absurd and evil acts that the absurd possibilities become oddly believable. I'm not saying it happened... but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Pizzagate being "real" is ill-defined. Things happening in the basement of a specific DC pizza place seems unlikely, though not impossible. For example, the claim that it lacks a basement is reasonable but unproven. We'd have to excavate to be sure that there wasn't an unauthorized basement that is now filled-in to hide evidence.

We do know that pizza-related codewords are used by pedos, and that pizza-related codewords are used in the leaked Podesta emails. Are they unrelated? Not many people will rent a specific number of slices of pizza for a specific number of hours, but that is exactly what the emails reveal. The number of slices is commonly thought to mean the age of the children, but it could be the number of children.

Would you consider pizzagate "real" if everything was as stated, except that the actual building was next door to the pizza place? Supposedly a near-by building was owned by Epstein.

Would you consider pizzagate "real" if the pizza place was just a location to meet up, but not where any child was actually harmed?

Re: One pollster’s explanation for why the polls got it wrong

#560

Post by knaq » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #466

christophilus wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of Trump voters, and I’m not aware of any who believe these things. It might be my own bubble, though. They voted almost exclusively due to the abortion issue.

Yeah, I think that's a separate category. I've tried to engage with a number of Trump supporters, as I'd really like to understand how reasonable, ethical people could vote for someone I see as so despicable and dangerous. Obviously I'm missing something, and I honestly don't want to think that half the US population is unreasonable on unethical. I've found that the most reasonable people tend to be staunchly pro lif…

If you're missing something, it's probably because you dismiss what was said. I've seen that happen all too often.

For example, suppose a person doesn't want to become a linguistic or religious minority in their own country. When they logically oppose immigration, do you decide that you're hearing a dogwhistle for white supremacy? If so, you're discarding what was actually said and you're substituting false data that supports a pre-determined conclusion that Trump supporters are racist.

Another factor is that there has been some truly shocking projection and gaslighting with regard to corruption. Like no other president, Trump has fought corruption, yet he is relentlessly accused of it. The claim that Obama had a "scandal-free presidency" is a cruel joke; his abuse of the intelligence apparatus to target a political opponent made Nixon look saintly. Biden's family has gotten rich off of foreign influence; we have the evidence and there is no alternative explanation. The whole impeachment process started because both Biden and Pelosi had children collecting bribes from Ukranian gas companies, and Trump dared to tell the Ukraine that prosecuting the corrupt was proper. Looking back to Hillary, her actions with classified information would have put any normal person in prison for decades. The contrast with Trump is stunning. For years everybody has investigated Trump in hope of finding something, and everybody has failed.

The desire to put America first is real, legitimate, and proper. It's a job requirement for the president.

Cutting regulations shot the economy to record highs before that virus hit. Inequality actually dropped. Black and hispanic unemployment was the lowest recorded ever, with records going back over half a century. Trump knew what business needed, and he delivered.

Why do you imagine that "he doesn't care about the damage he does"? He is only damaging things that need to be damaged, like the choking bureaucracy. He cares, and he did the damage on purpose, because the damage was needed. If by "damage" you're referring to something like the opinions of the leftist leaders of parasitic countries, yeah he doesn't care and he shouldn't care. The job is to put America first, not to please foreigners.