US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Manoli]

The Economist is publishing its first-ever statistical forecast of an American presidential election. Developed with the assistance of Andrew Gelman and Merlin Heidemanns, political scientists at Columbia University, our model calculates Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s probabilities of winning each individual state and the election overall. Its projections will be updated every day at

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president.

Article detailing the methodology
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president/how-this-works

We are publishing the source code for what we believe to be the most innovative section of the model. All readers are welcome to download it, explore how it works, tweak its parameters and run it themselves. (requires wading wading through a script in the R and Stan programming languages).

Note:
This topic is started pursuant to:
< Free-flowing political discussions may take place elsewhere and may cover any, or indeed all, topics >
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=134505.msg1176190#msg1176190

[LesPalenik]

All models are relatively static. In a steady environment, they can be quite accurate.
However, a lot of things could happen between now and November, and any of these things could drastically change the final outcome.

[Manoli]

All models are relatively static. In a steady environment, they can be quite accurate.
However, a lot of things could happen between now and November, and any of these things could drastically change the final outcome

" Our model is updated every day and combines state and national polls with economic indicators to predict a range of outcomes ..."

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president.

Please read < How The Economist presidential forecast works > before posting.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president/how-this-works

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Our model is updated every day... 

Please read the links attentively prior to posting.

So?

It only means that we shouldn't pay attention to today's polls, as tomorrow it will be different. And even one day before the election, it may or may not be any wiser. Remember the 98% chance of Hillary winning, the night before the election?

P.S. Not a good idea to start a thread with condescension.

[Alan Klein]

Why would we want to follow one poll when there are dozens to choose from?  For example, Real Clear Politics summarizes and averages them out.  That's a better, less prejudiced  source for polls than the one you favor.  Also, The Economist is a left-leaning British outlet who doesn't like Trump.  You ought to follow more neutral and independent polling sources. 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[hogloff]

Why would we want to follow one poll when there are dozens to choose from?  For example, Real Clear Politics summarizes and averages them out.  That's a better, less prejudiced  source for polls than the one you favor.  Also, The Economist is a left-leaning British outlet who doesn't like Trump.  You ought to follow more neutral and independent polling sources. 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

It's not a poll. It uses a bunch of different polls along with the economic data to predict the outcomes. Did you read the article?

[James Clark]

Noe:
This topic is started pursuant to:
< Free-flowing political discussions may take place elsewhere and may cover any, or indeed all, topics >
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=134505.msg1176190#msg1176190

Is this caveat really necessary?  If you had bothered to read the relevant post at the appropriate time it should have been crystal clear this would be fine, or so I'm pointedly informed

[Jeremy Roussak]

Is this caveat really necessary?  If you had bothered to read the relevant post at the appropriate time it should have been crystal clear this would be fine, or so I'm pointedly informed

It's a justification, not a caveat. But you're quite right.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

It's not a poll. It uses a bunch of different polls along with the economic data to predict the outcomes. Did you read the article?

Regardless of their technique, it's a single algorithm from a left leaning British organization.  What is their track record of predictions?  After all this is a new algorithm.  Why should we believe their results?

[James Clark]

It's a justification, not a caveat. But you're quite right.

Jeremy

No, it's a caveat:

Definition:
A warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.. This is, in fact, a proviso of specific conditions and/or limitations related to the established rules of posting here.


It needs no justification, as you believe you had previously made clear.

[Jeremy Roussak]

No, it's a caveat:

Definition:
A warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.. This is, in fact, a proviso of specific conditions and/or limitations related to the established rules of posting here.
It needs no justification, as you believe you had previously made clear.

Without getting into too much detail, you're wrong. My post contained warnings. That part of Manoli's post which you quoted contained none; it merely referenced mine. I agree that this thread needs no justification, and Manoli none for starting it; but that doesn't alter the nature of his words, which constituted a justification.

I have a feeling that at some point I am going to have to explain what argumentum ad hominem means, since I get a strong indication that people are confusing its use with being insulting; but I'll leave that for another day.

Jeremy

[Peter McLennan]

Some excellent examples here:

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Some excellent examples here...

Excellent!? Rather like The Leftist Idiot’s Guide to Ad Hominem. Leftist idiots managed to redefine yet another classical term to be about feelings and emotions. 

[TechTalk]

Excellent!? Rather like The Leftist Idiot’s Guide to Ad Hominem. Leftist idiots managed to redefine yet another classical term to be about feelings and emotions. 

Was this meant as an observation or an example of an Ad Hominem attack? If the latter, it's pretty much perfect!

[James Clark]

Hey Manoli - my apologies for derailing your thread right off the bat

Let's get back to it. 

[hogloff]

Regardless of their technique, it's a single algorithm from a left leaning British organization.  What is their track record of predictions?  After all this is a new algorithm.  Why should we believe their results?

History shows you don't believe anything unless it lines up with your views. Believe in whatever floats your boat. Looking at any angle...Trump is not sitting pretty right now.

[Craig Lamson]

History shows you don't believe anything unless it lines up with your views. Believe in whatever floats your boat. Looking at any angle...Trump is not sitting pretty right now.

Poll says Hillary up big just  days before the 2016 election.  What are you gonna believe?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-major-lead-trump-final-debate-poll-article-1.2841984

[hogloff]

Poll says Hillary up big just  days before the 2016 election.  What are you gonna believe?

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-major-lead-trump-final-debate-poll-article-1.2841984

Yep...and lightening can strike twice in the same place.

[LesPalenik]

Yep...and lightening can strike twice in the same place.

or when it comes to Democrats

[John Camp]

I sort of enjoyed the way that this went from a serious and fairly compelling original post, and then drove straight into the ditch.

The Economist doesn't consider itself to be left-leaning; it explicitly considers itself to be "radically centrist." I've been reading it for years, and think that's fairly accurate. As for not liking Trump, well, who does, really? The guy is undoubtedly the biggest asshole ever to inhabit the American presidency, which makes him high up in the standings for biggest asshole in the universe. But because the obsequious, ass-kissing Republican Senate follows him around like a bunch of frightened puppy dogs doesn't mean they like him, they're simply afraid of being kicked.

If the Economist thought one ranking was enough, then they obviously wouldn't have made provisions to alter this day-any-day through the campaign. I just wished they'd waited until, say, October to do this, because it's going to get tedious.