Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

JohnStOnge wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Ruh roh:

Queue JSO on another demographics rant. I'm setting the over/under at 1000 words.

Doesn't take 1000 words. That's an outlier. And Rasmussen is not one of the better polls.

They were 2nd closest on the Nov '16 election:

Monday, December 05, 2016

Rasmussen Reports told you all along that it was a much closer race than most other pollsters predicted. We weren’t surprised Election Night. They were. Now Real Clear Politics has posted the final results, and look who came in second out of 11 top pollsters who surveyed the four-way race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... s_it_right

JSO, be better tomorrow.

SDHornet wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Doesn't take 1000 words. That's an outlier. And Rasmussen is not one of the better polls.

They were 2nd closest on the Nov '16 election:

Monday, December 05, 2016

Rasmussen Reports told you all along that it was a much closer race than most other pollsters predicted. We weren’t surprised Election Night. They were. Now Real Clear Politics has posted the final results, and look who came in second out of 11 top pollsters who surveyed the four-way race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... s_it_right

JSO, be better tomorrow.

We've been through that before. The article doesn't mention that for the 2012 Election Rasmussen estimated Romney by 1 and Obama won by 3.9. I go with the 538 pollster ratings; which include consideration of how polling organizations do over a large number of polls. And when you do that you see that Rasmussen is tied for 193rd out of 396 polls in terms of simple average error and is tied for 18th among those 396 polls in terms of bias. So it's at the 51st percentile in terms of central tendency accuracy and at the 5th percentile in terms of being unbiased. When you look at how it's done over a large number of efforts it's just not an impressive poll.

It's rated C+ by 538. I don't see an easy way to look at its cross tabs when I look I click on the poll links at the RealClearPolitics site. Right now they have three polls up such that I can readily access Black approval ratings. Among Blacks the YouGov poll (graded B by 538) has Trump with a 15% approval rating, the Harvard Harris poll (C+) has him at 18%, and the Marist poll (A) has him at 13%.

That brings up an interesting question about what job approval ratings mean in terms of who people will vote for. But I don't think having a 13% to 18% approval rating among Blacks necessarily means that level of support when voting time comes. Like for instance George W. Bush once had a 92% job approval rating. But I don't think anybody believes that, if an election had been held right then, he'd have gotten 92% of the vote.

BTW you can take it or leave it but the poll I most perk up for is the ABC News Washington Post poll. It's an A+ rated poll by 538 but there's more to it than that for me. In statistics there is kind of a rule of thumb where one likes to see a sample size of at least 30. There are 46 polls such that 538 has at least 30 results to analyze.

Among those polls the ABC News Washington Post poll has the smallest average error (2.9 percentage points). So it's 1st in terms of minimizing average error. The Rasmussen poll is also among the 46 polls with at least 30 analyzed. It's tied for 28th in terms of minimizing average error.

If I see that an ABC News Washington Post Poll says something like 30% of Blacks approve of Trump's job I'm going to take that a lot more seriously than if I see Rasmussen's poll saying that.

Didn't read nor did I count, but I'm going with over 1000 words.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW you can take it or leave it but the poll I most perk up for is the ABC News Washington Post poll. It's an A+ rated poll by 538 but there's more to it than that for me. In statistics there is kind of a rule of thumb where one likes to see a sample size of at least 30. There are 46 polls such that 538 has at least 30 results to analyze.

Among those polls the ABC News Washington Post poll has the smallest average error (2.9 percentage points). So it's 1st in terms of minimizing average error. The Rasmussen poll is also among the 46 polls with at least 30 analyzed. It's tied for 28th in terms of minimizing average error.

If I see that an ABC News Washington Post Poll says something like 30% of Blacks approve of Trump's job I'm going to take that a lot more seriously than if I see Rasmussen's poll saying that.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW you can take it or leave it but the poll I most perk up for is the ABC News Washington Post poll. It's an A+ rated poll by 538 but there's more to it than that for me. In statistics there is kind of a rule of thumb where one likes to see a sample size of at least 30. There are 46 polls such that 538 has at least 30 results to analyze.

Among those polls the ABC News Washington Post poll has the smallest average error (2.9 percentage points). So it's 1st in terms of minimizing average error. The Rasmussen poll is also among the 46 polls with at least 30 analyzed. It's tied for 28th in terms of minimizing average error.

If I see that an ABC News Washington Post Poll says something like 30% of Blacks approve of Trump's job I'm going to take that a lot more seriously than if I see Rasmussen's poll saying that.

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

Considering how fired up the Democrats are and how special elections have panned out so far, Trump and the GOP should be worried. The man is President primarily because of three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (with less than 80,000 combined votes).

I'll try to find the link but I have to work soon, however someone did the math and it was something like 200,000 potential Trump voters (that fit the demographics of those that voted for Trump) have died in the two years in those three states alone since the 2016 election.

The demographic changes and enthusiasm can't be denied, as we've seen with large swings in red areas.

∞∞∞ wrote:Considering how fired up the Democrats are and how special elections have panned out so far, Trump and the GOP should be worried. The man is President primarily because of three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (with less than 80,000 combined votes).

I'll try to find the link but I have to work soon, however someone did the math and it was something like 200,000 potential Trump voters (that fit the demographics of those that voted for Trump) have died in the two years in those three states alone since the 2016 election.

The demographic changes and enthusiasm can't be denied, as we've seen with large swings in red areas.

He's President because the machines were gamed

AZGrizFan wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: That's just great. So you are hoping people lose their jobs and companies go out of business (real life negative impacts) just because your feathers are ruffled (emotional impact).

I've said it before. JSO is rooting for the president and the country to fail, just to prove him right.

He's gone full retard.

The President has already failed. Bigly.


tick tock...

∞∞∞ wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Yup, just look at all those Rust Belt areas that have been controlled by D's for the better half of the last century. Really did the middle class some wonders.

I mean the actual wealth and quality of life between blue states and red states isn't even comparable.

But it doesn't matter if you're blue, red, purple, or whatever...if you don't adapt as the world changes around you, you're going to be left behind. Policies can slow or speed things up, but in the end the result will skew towards a certain direction. The Rust Belt can be something else, as Pittsburgh and Akron prove. It takes a strong vision from policy makers, but more importantly, an actual will from people in those areas.

Personal responsibility, amirite?

And that's with the blue states carrying the parasitic red states share of federal taxes.

houndawg wrote:And that's with the blue states carrying the parasitic red states share of federal taxes.

There's a term for such redistributions of wealth:

Socialism.

houndawg wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I mean the actual wealth and quality of life between blue states and red states isn't even comparable.

But it doesn't matter if you're blue, red, purple, or whatever...if you don't adapt as the world changes around you, you're going to be left behind. Policies can slow or speed things up, but in the end the result will skew towards a certain direction. The Rust Belt can be something else, as Pittsburgh and Akron prove. It takes a strong vision from policy makers, but more importantly, an actual will from people in those areas.

Personal responsibility, amirite?

And that's with the blue states carrying the parasitic red states share of federal taxes.

Maybe the blue states shouldn't have destroyed those red states, forcing them to live in squalor and struggle for the next 80-90 years.

Spoiler: show

Ibanez wrote:

houndawg wrote:
And that's with the blue states carrying the parasitic red states share of federal taxes.

Maybe the blue states shouldn't have destroyed those red states, forcing them to live in squalor and struggle for the next 80-90 years.

Spoiler: show

Or maybe it's because the red states are better negotiators.

UNI88 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Maybe the blue states shouldn't have destroyed those red states, forcing them to live in squalor and struggle for the next 80-90 years.

Spoiler: show

Or maybe it's because the red states are better negotiators.

My post was satire.

It may have been nuanced.

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW you can take it or leave it but the poll I most perk up for is the ABC News Washington Post poll. It's an A+ rated poll by 538 but there's more to it than that for me. In statistics there is kind of a rule of thumb where one likes to see a sample size of at least 30. There are 46 polls such that 538 has at least 30 results to analyze.

Among those polls the ABC News Washington Post poll has the smallest average error (2.9 percentage points). So it's 1st in terms of minimizing average error. The Rasmussen poll is also among the 46 polls with at least 30 analyzed. It's tied for 28th in terms of minimizing average error.

If I see that an ABC News Washington Post Poll says something like 30% of Blacks approve of Trump's job I'm going to take that a lot more seriously than if I see Rasmussen's poll saying that.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW you can take it or leave it but the poll I most perk up for is the ABC News Washington Post poll. It's an A+ rated poll by 538 but there's more to it than that for me. In statistics there is kind of a rule of thumb where one likes to see a sample size of at least 30. There are 46 polls such that 538 has at least 30 results to analyze.

Among those polls the ABC News Washington Post poll has the smallest average error (2.9 percentage points). So it's 1st in terms of minimizing average error. The Rasmussen poll is also among the 46 polls with at least 30 analyzed. It's tied for 28th in terms of minimizing average error.

If I see that an ABC News Washington Post Poll says something like 30% of Blacks approve of Trump's job I'm going to take that a lot more seriously than if I see Rasmussen's poll saying that.

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

Silver did not call the election for Hillary on election eve. Another thing we've been through before. It's related to me posting on election eve that it was not a done deal based on the 538 forecast. People who think Silver's projections showed that Clinton was a lock to win don't understand statistical estimation and inference. 538's projection "chance" on election eve did not suggest sufficient evidence to conclude that either candidate would win. It suggested "too close to call."

And his statements about Trump winning the nomination was not based on polling. It was based on perceptions about what Trump's historical positions were.

Regardless, the pollster ratings include things like average error and bias. Rasmussen is middle of the pack in terms of average error and among the worst in terms of bias. It is what it is. It's not one of the better polls.

This is to put the "538 was wrong" thing into perspective. The 538 "polls only" election eve page is at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/.

First of all, 45 of the 50 States went the way they were shaded based on the point estimates. As I've said before, by convention, what you are looking for when making a call in statistics is 95% confidence. There was not 95% confidence in ANY of the 5 States that didn't go the way they were shaded.

Secondly, there is the overall "percent chance" projection. That's a confidence level. It's 71.4% for Clinton winning. That is not even CLOSE to what would be required for making a decision in statistics. A drug company that went to FDA with data saying their drug would have an effect with 71.4% confidence would be laughed out of the office. No way.

The idea that 538 "got it wrong" or made a "call" that Hillary would win based on that page is just ridiculous. And saying 538 should be discredited because Trump won the electoral college is saying that college football oddsmakers should be discredited because Clemson beat Alabama in the following 2017 College football championship game.

Saying that there is 71.4% confidence that something will happen then having it not happen is no big deal. One instance of it not happening doesn't discredit anything at all.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I've said it before. JSO is rooting for the president and the country to fail, just to prove him right.

He's gone full retard.

The President has already failed. Bigly.


tick tock...

Don’t make me post his huuuuuuuuge list of accomplishments again.

I'm following the Ohio election results right now - regardless of what happens, the gerrymandering effect is in full effect. Red counties can routinely overwhelm a blue population center, but at the same time a blue county can single handily take the election for an expansive geographic area.

Nobody should be okay with this.

And there are over 70 elections in November with more favorable demographics for Democrats.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'm following the Ohio election results right now - regardless of what happens, the gerrymandering effect is in full effect. Red counties can routinely overwhelm a blue population center, but at the same time a blue county can single handily take the election for an expansive geographic area.

Nobody should be okay with this.

Well at least you are not blaming the Ohio loss on the Green Party candidate...

...or the Russians...

Socialist star Ocasio-Cortez strikes out: All endorsed candidates lose Tuesday primaries

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s record on Tuesday night for her chosen primary candidates was as bare as a Venezuelan supermarket shelf.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/social ... primaries/

SDHornet wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I'm following the Ohio election results right now - regardless of what happens, the gerrymandering effect is in full effect. Red counties can routinely overwhelm a blue population center, but at the same time a blue county can single handily take the election for an expansive geographic area.

Nobody should be okay with this.

Well at least you are not blaming the Ohio loss on the Green Party candidate...

...or the Russians...

I get his anger - but a 3rd party isn't the (only) reason his guy is neck and neck with a Republican.

SDHornet wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I'm following the Ohio election results right now - regardless of what happens, the gerrymandering effect is in full effect. Red counties can routinely overwhelm a blue population center, but at the same time a blue county can single handily take the election for an expansive geographic area.

Nobody should be okay with this.

Well at least you are not blaming the Ohio loss on the Green Party candidate...

...or the Russians...

Democrats are as confused about what progressive means as Republicans are.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I've said it before. JSO is rooting for the president and the country to fail, just to prove him right.

He's gone full retard.

The President has already failed. Bigly.
tick tock...

Wrong. Trump has accomplished more in a year and a half than Obomba did in 8. Winning again and again and again. And you'll see this in 2020:

What a tremendous troll.

93henfan wrote:

What a tremendous troll.

That is championship caliber....