Does anyone yet know why Covid-19 affects a small proportion of people so severely when most people either aren't affected by it or are only slightly affected? This seems to be one of the biggest mysteries of the virus.
Every time there seems to be a plausible theory or some initial analysis e.g. blood group, there is soon research that appears to disprove this.
This - there are a million theories. No answers yet.
There is something missing in the puzzle - some times the virus appears extremely infectious. At others, groups of people in close proximity - sharing a crowed chalet or on a cruise ship - an only a small percentage fall ill.
Yes, the whole super spreading event thing is another unknown factor. A spoke to a friend of mine the other day and they are having to isolate at the moment, because they came into contact with somebody who over the course of a weekend infected every single person they interacted with. From what I can gather, no symptoms and not really that close or prolonged contact. Literally popped over to a few people houses to drop bits and pieces off etc.
My friend previously had COVID and is the only one of all the people the infected person met over those two days to come back negative.
You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.
Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?
Question: is that $8.3bn better going to the US taxpayer or to the arts? (Sackler Library, Sackler Gallery etc)
Absolutely incredible.
You have outdone yourself to a degree that I did not think possible.
Just bravo.
The estimated costs of dealing with the opiate addiction crisis in the US, primarily created by the Sacklers, runs into the $100s billions, not 8
It takes several million to tango, though. The Sacklers seem pretty unpleasant people, but they forced nobody at gunpoint to prescribe or take this stuff, and if them why not go after Smith and Wesson, and Diageo?
They bribed doctors to prescribe people opioids.
Ah, so you don't support museums then? Can't make an omlette without deliberately lying about the destructive effects of your drugs.
What a depressingly stupid post. I have already said the Sacklers were complete shits, museums was a bonkers irrelevance from another poster altogether, professionals are not meant to accept without question statements made about the subject-matter of their professional expertise, and what is an omlette?
That wasn't a criticism of you, it was a criticism of Charles. Since as you say the museum point was from another poster why did you think it was directed at you? Calm the f*ck down.
Re the opioids stuff, I attended a meeting with the guys who ran one of the largest US pharma trade shows on pain relief. They looked fairly sheepish but one thing they did mention was that prescribing opioids was a hell of a lot cheaper than physio or other pain relief methods hence why doctors went with opioids
There were also a number of advocacy groups that pretended to be "grass roots" which campaigned for a "pain free America" and for the loosening of rules about prescrbing opiates.
And which were funded by the opiate makers.
Terrible, but a sign of a huge collective cockup. Hands up, anyone who knows what substance was marketed by Bayer in the 1890s as a "non-addictive morphine substitute"? I knew that anyway (though I thought it was the 1900s till I looked it up), but the lesson passed by the entire US medical establishment? This is a massive systemic failure by whole professions and whole industries, and it is no use trying to pin 100% of the blame on House Harkonnen.
They had unambiguous, publishable grade science saying that Oxy wasn't what they said it was. Not just one scientist or experiment. A whole raft of scientific evidence, unambiguous in it's meaning.
They knew, and carefully and deliberately hid the evidence and funded an elaborate and long running scheme to fight against the truth of what they knew.
Does anyone yet know why Covid-19 affects a small proportion of people so severely when most people either aren't affected by it or are only slightly affected? This seems to be one of the biggest mysteries of the virus.
Every time there seems to be a plausible theory or some initial analysis e.g. blood group, there is soon research that appears to disprove this.
This - there are a million theories. No answers yet.
There is something missing in the puzzle - some times the virus appears extremely infectious. At others, groups of people in close proximity - sharing a crowed chalet or on a cruise ship - an only a small percentage fall ill.
Yes, the whole super spreading event thing is another unknown factor. A spoke to a friend of mine the other day and they are having to isolate at the moment, because they came into contact with somebody who over the course of a weekend infected every single person they interacted with. From what I can gather, no symptoms and not really that close or prolonged contact. Literally popped over to a few people houses to drop bits and pieces off etc.
My friend previously had COVID and is the only one of all the people the infected person met over those two days to come back negative.
You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.
Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?
Question: is that $8.3bn better going to the US taxpayer or to the arts? (Sackler Library, Sackler Gallery etc)
Absolutely incredible.
You have outdone yourself to a degree that I did not think possible.
Just bravo.
The estimated costs of dealing with the opiate addiction crisis in the US, primarily created by the Sacklers, runs into the $100s billions, not 8
It takes several million to tango, though. The Sacklers seem pretty unpleasant people, but they forced nobody at gunpoint to prescribe or take this stuff, and if them why not go after Smith and Wesson, and Diageo?
They bribed doctors to prescribe people opioids.
Ah, so you don't support museums then? Can't make an omlette without deliberately lying about the destructive effects of your drugs.
What a depressingly stupid post. I have already said the Sacklers were complete shits, museums was a bonkers irrelevance from another poster altogether, professionals are not meant to accept without question statements made about the subject-matter of their professional expertise, and what is an omlette?
That wasn't a criticism of you, it was a criticism of Charles. Since as you say the museum point was from another poster why did you think it was directed at you? Calm the f*ck down.
Re the opioids stuff, I attended a meeting with the guys who ran one of the largest US pharma trade shows on pain relief. They looked fairly sheepish but one thing they did mention was that prescribing opioids was a hell of a lot cheaper than physio or other pain relief methods hence why doctors went with opioids
There were also a number of advocacy groups that pretended to be "grass roots" which campaigned for a "pain free America" and for the loosening of rules about prescrbing opiates.
And which were funded by the opiate makers.
Terrible, but a sign of a huge collective cockup. Hands up, anyone who knows what substance was marketed by Bayer in the 1890s as a "non-addictive morphine substitute"? I knew that anyway (though I thought it was the 1900s till I looked it up), but the lesson passed by the entire US medical establishment? This is a massive systemic failure by whole professions and whole industries, and it is no use trying to pin 100% of the blame on House Harkonnen.
They had unambiguous, publishable grade science saying that Oxy wasn't what they said it was. Not just one scientist or experiment. A whole raft of scientific evidence, unambiguous in it's meaning.
They knew, and carefully and deliberately hid the evidence and funded an elaborate and long running scheme to fight against the truth of what they knew.
While they made money.
Well of course they did, but why did nobody else do the same science and reach the same conclusions? Why did none of the many scientists involved blow the whistle?
And just to save everybody's time: if someone else comes along with a completely different novel, non-addictive opioid in a year or two, they'll be lying about it too.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.
Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?
Question: is that $8.3bn better going to the US taxpayer or to the arts? (Sackler Library, Sackler Gallery etc)
Absolutely incredible.
You have outdone yourself to a degree that I did not think possible.
Just bravo.
The estimated costs of dealing with the opiate addiction crisis in the US, primarily created by the Sacklers, runs into the $100s billions, not 8
It takes several million to tango, though. The Sacklers seem pretty unpleasant people, but they forced nobody at gunpoint to prescribe or take this stuff, and if them why not go after Smith and Wesson, and Diageo?
They bribed doctors to prescribe people opioids.
Ah, so you don't support museums then? Can't make an omlette without deliberately lying about the destructive effects of your drugs.
What a depressingly stupid post. I have already said the Sacklers were complete shits, museums was a bonkers irrelevance from another poster altogether, professionals are not meant to accept without question statements made about the subject-matter of their professional expertise, and what is an omlette?
That wasn't a criticism of you, it was a criticism of Charles. Since as you say the museum point was from another poster why did you think it was directed at you? Calm the f*ck down.
Re the opioids stuff, I attended a meeting with the guys who ran one of the largest US pharma trade shows on pain relief. They looked fairly sheepish but one thing they did mention was that prescribing opioids was a hell of a lot cheaper than physio or other pain relief methods hence why doctors went with opioids
There were also a number of advocacy groups that pretended to be "grass roots" which campaigned for a "pain free America" and for the loosening of rules about prescrbing opiates.
And which were funded by the opiate makers.
Terrible, but a sign of a huge collective cockup. Hands up, anyone who knows what substance was marketed by Bayer in the 1890s as a "non-addictive morphine substitute"? I knew that anyway (though I thought it was the 1900s till I looked it up), but the lesson passed by the entire US medical establishment? This is a massive systemic failure by whole professions and whole industries, and it is no use trying to pin 100% of the blame on House Harkonnen.
They had unambiguous, publishable grade science saying that Oxy wasn't what they said it was. Not just one scientist or experiment. A whole raft of scientific evidence, unambiguous in it's meaning.
They knew, and carefully and deliberately hid the evidence and funded an elaborate and long running scheme to fight against the truth of what they knew.
While they made money.
Well of course they did, but why did nobody else do the same science and reach the same conclusions? Why did none of the many scientists involved blow the whistle?
And just to save everybody's time: if someone else comes along with a completely different novel, non-addictive opioid in a year or two, they'll be lying about it too.
Scientists did try and blow the whistle - pretty hard to looks at the Oxy addiction epidemic and come to another conclusion. But it is interesting how stopping multi-billion dollar juggernauts is a bit hard.
Remember that all the time the opiate makers were selling the line about "suddenly stopping pain relief for x million Americans". Along with their sock puppet "grass roots" groups.....
Absolutely no cash was donated to any politician whatsoever. No sir. Not illegally, anyways.....
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
The guy who died that was in the Oxford vaccine trial (but got the placebo) was only 28.
A Brazilian doctor who died with Covid-19 after volunteering for AstraZeneca and Oxford University's vaccine trial was not part of the experimental group that received the jab, according to reports. Dr João Pedro R. Feitosa, 28, is reported to have died from complications from the virus on October 15, website G1 Rio in Brazil has confirmed.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
Does anyone yet know why Covid-19 affects a small proportion of people so severely when most people either aren't affected by it or are only slightly affected? This seems to be one of the biggest mysteries of the virus.
Every time there seems to be a plausible theory or some initial analysis e.g. blood group, there is soon research that appears to disprove this.
This - there are a million theories. No answers yet.
There is something missing in the puzzle - some times the virus appears extremely infectious. At others, groups of people in close proximity - sharing a crowed chalet or on a cruise ship - an only a small percentage fall ill.
Yes, the whole super spreading event thing is another unknown factor. A spoke to a friend of mine the other day and they are having to isolate at the moment, because they came into contact with somebody who over the course of a weekend infected every single person they interacted with. From what I can gather, no symptoms and not really that close or prolonged contact. Literally popped over to a few people houses to drop bits and pieces off etc.
My friend previously had COVID and is the only one of all the people the infected person met over those two days to come back negative.
I imagine the perfect super-spreader would be someone like Roy Hattersley’s Spitting Image puppet.
The guy who died that was in the Oxford vaccine trial (but got the placebo) was only 28.
A Brazilian doctor who died with Covid-19 after volunteering for AstraZeneca and Oxford University's vaccine trial was not part of the experimental group that received the jab, according to reports. Dr João Pedro R. Feitosa, 28, is reported to have died from complications from the virus on October 15, website G1 Rio in Brazil has confirmed.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Why don’t you have a read of the thread. @HYUFD is known to simply focus on 2016 and nothing else. I therefore posted a tweet by Nate Silver arguing that data from all US presidential elections should be considered. His response to that was to say that Nate Silver can be ignored “because 2016”.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Why don’t you have a read of the thread. @HYUFD is known to simply focus on 2016 and nothing else. I therefore posted a tweet by Nate Silver arguing that data from all US presidential elections should be considered. His response to that was to say that Nate Silver can be ignored “because 2016”.
It really is as simple as that.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
PA and FL are probably the only states that really matter as far as Trump is concerned.
He also needs to worry about NC, since it has somewhat different demographics to either FL or PA, and also did a lot of early voting (45% of 2016 so far) so a last-minute shift will only go so far.
Flipping WI+MI+NC would win it for Biden without PA or FL.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Why don’t you have a read of the thread. @HYUFD is known to simply focus on 2016 and nothing else. I therefore posted a tweet by Nate Silver arguing that data from all US presidential elections should be considered. His response to that was to say that Nate Silver can be ignored “because 2016”.
It really is as simple as that.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You should compare to 2016 absolutely, but you shouldn’t ignore everything else at its expense.
For example there is no logic to believing that just because Trafalgar were closest in some states in 2016 means they will be closest in 2020, especially when you consider their tragic performance in the 2018 midterms.
Likewise there is no logic to believing that there will be a polling error in favour of Trump simply because there was one in 2016. There could equally be one in favour of the Democrats as there was in 2008.
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Why don’t you have a read of the thread. @HYUFD is known to simply focus on 2016 and nothing else. I therefore posted a tweet by Nate Silver arguing that data from all US presidential elections should be considered. His response to that was to say that Nate Silver can be ignored “because 2016”.
It really is as simple as that.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You should compare to 2016 absolutely, but you shouldn’t ignore everything else at its expense.
For example there is no logic to believing that just because Trafalgar were closest in some states in 2016 means they will be closest in 2020, especially when you consider their tragic performance in the 2018 midterms.
Likewise there is no logic to believing that there will be a polling error in favour of Trump simply because there was one in 2016. There could equally be one in favour of the Democrats as there was in 2008.
There was an error in favour of the Dems more recently. Mid terms.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
If you keep posting LOGIC and stiff like that, then I will need to swing the ban hammer.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
No but if it's a time series there is a real chance your most recent sample is so much more predictive than anything else, that chucking in the predecessors achieves nothing other than an illusion of multi-sampledom. For instance, I know nothing about Formula 1, but I understand from M Dancer's commentary that the relevant evidence for "who will win this year's title" is "who won last year's title," and Fangio's results in the 50s don't just add rather little. They add absolutely nothing. A lot of the reason for that being that there's competitors who carry over from last year.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
No but if it's a time series there is a real chance your most recent sample is so much more predictive than anything else, that chucking in the predecessors achieves nothing other than an illusion of multi-sampledom. For instance, I know nothing about Formula 1, but I understand from M Dancer's commentary that the relevant evidence for "who will win this year's title" is "who won last year's title," and Fangio's results in the 50s don't just add rather little. They add absolutely nothing. A lot of the reason for that being that there's competitors who carry over from last year.
What you're describing isn't the process for working out the winner, it's the final step at the end of the process. To know how relevant who won last year's title is to who won this year's title you first have to look at the historical record. If there are very long stretches of the same person winning, you can assign a very high probability to last year's winner winning again. If on the other hand there's a lot of randomness in the results and the same person hardly ever wins twice in a row, you need to pay less attention to that and look at other factors.
In this case we want to know things like how important incumbency is (answer: somewhat), how important the economy is (answer: somewhat) and how predictive the polls are (answer: early polls moderately predictive, late polls strongly predictive).
Given 538 forecast Hillary 302 Trump 235 in its final EC projection I will stick to making comparisons to 2016
It’s funny that you are so arrogant that you think you know better than Nate Silver. Get a grip man.
Well we will see on election night won't we!
This just shows how poor your understanding is. Nate Silver says repeatedly that Trump can still win, as he did in 2016 too.
Nate Silver covers his back that is all, he is still forecasting a Biden popular vote and EC win
Honestly you need to read a book on statistics and probability. Your understanding is atrocious.
Unless you give something a probability of zero you can always say you gave a chance of it happening, absurd argument, otherwise what your final forecast is should be what you are judged on
Nate Silver does not “forecast” anything. They have a model that takes data and generates probabilities of events occurring. That is all. These probabilities are useful for betting on.
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
Wait, isn't it literally called "Presidential forecast" on his website?
Yes but the point is not to say “this will be the result” but rather “these are the probabilities of these results”. A nuance that goes completely and utterly over @HYUFD ’s head.
Does it? I haven't seen him claim any outcome is a slam-dunk.
Literally about 5 posts ago he described such things as irrelevant and simply back covering.
Hasn't that been the output on the editorial side, that it's Biden's to lose?
They give Biden’s current chances of victory in the high 80s so of course the model suggests that 9 times out of 10 Biden will win if the election is tomorrow. That model includes polling errors and the like but if you listen to their podcast they are still conservative about Trump’s chances of victory.
I don't think that's inconsistent with @HYUFD's position, to be honest. Trump could win this, despite what the polls say.
@HYUFD has implied tonight that he knows better than Nate Silver when it comes to US polling, simply because their model gave Clinton a 70% chance of victory in 2016. I therefore told him he was incredibly arrogant.
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
Was he saying that? Or was he saying that such models are easily influenced by systemic errors like what occurred in 2016. The model is only as good as the input after all.
Why don’t you have a read of the thread. @HYUFD is known to simply focus on 2016 and nothing else. I therefore posted a tweet by Nate Silver arguing that data from all US presidential elections should be considered. His response to that was to say that Nate Silver can be ignored “because 2016”.
It really is as simple as that.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You should compare to 2016 absolutely, but you shouldn’t ignore everything else at its expense.
For example there is no logic to believing that just because Trafalgar were closest in some states in 2016 means they will be closest in 2020, especially when you consider their tragic performance in the 2018 midterms.
Likewise there is no logic to believing that there will be a polling error in favour of Trump simply because there was one in 2016. There could equally be one in favour of the Democrats as there was in 2008.
I generally agree with what you and Nate Silver are saying, though I do really wonder how much relevant there is to learn from adding 1880 to the mix.
I understand that greater sample size in general is better than smaller samples size, provided the additional samples are relevant. But you don't add to the accuracy of your estimate of the average weight of an elephant by adding more gerbils into the mix, simply because the gerbils increase the sample size.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
If you keep posting LOGIC and stiff like that, then I will need to swing the ban hammer.
You are at a festival. You and your mate buy pills from the same vendor. More virtuously, you are foraging for mushrooms. You pick what you are pretty certain a rare and delicious species of cep. Your mate takes the pill/eats the mushrooms and shortly afterwards goes into convulsions. Do you say "Yebbut look at the sample size, where's the control, where's the blinding, what was the predefined primary endpoint, have you looked at potential confounders?" Or does stone cold inductive logic permit you to make valid predictions about the likely consequences of you eating the pill/mushrooms? Is it quite easy or very hard to make those predictions?
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
No but if it's a time series there is a real chance your most recent sample is so much more predictive than anything else, that chucking in the predecessors achieves nothing other than an illusion of multi-sampledom. For instance, I know nothing about Formula 1, but I understand from M Dancer's commentary that the relevant evidence for "who will win this year's title" is "who won last year's title," and Fangio's results in the 50s don't just add rather little. They add absolutely nothing. A lot of the reason for that being that there's competitors who carry over from last year.
A far better analogy would be Morris Dancer claiming superior predictive abilities because he bet at 3/1 on Hamilton losing the last race - and the bet came off, as Hamilton got a puncture.
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
No but if it's a time series there is a real chance your most recent sample is so much more predictive than anything else, that chucking in the predecessors achieves nothing other than an illusion of multi-sampledom. For instance, I know nothing about Formula 1, but I understand from M Dancer's commentary that the relevant evidence for "who will win this year's title" is "who won last year's title," and Fangio's results in the 50s don't just add rather little. They add absolutely nothing. A lot of the reason for that being that there's competitors who carry over from last year.
A far better analogy would be Morris Dancer claiming superior predictive abilities because he bet at 3/1 on Hamilton losing the last race - and the bet came off, as Hamilton got a puncture.
Though in this case, “your most recent sample” is the midterms, where Trafalgar did very badly.
WA State 2020 General Election - Ballot Returns as of October 21 (EDay -14)
Here are statewide ballot returns for this election two weeks out from EDay, compared with ballot returns from four years ago at same point in cycle:
2016 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.3 million cumulative ballot returns = 421,605 (9.9% of active reg)
2020 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.8 million > increase of +551k (+13%) over 2016 cumulative ballot returns = 1,208,238 (25% of active reg) > whopping increase of +787k (+187%) in early returns two weeks out versus 2016
There are wide difference in return rates among Washington's 39 counties, stemming from demographics (rural residents and older tend to voter earlier than urbanites and younger) AND also from variables such as local mail delivery patterns and problem, and the date when counties mailed out bulk of their ballots (ranging from last Wed to Fri).
Currently return rates range from high of 48% in Columbia County (very small inhabited by retired wheat farmers) down to 5% Okanogan Co (largest geographically but small pop) and 0% in Grays Harbor Co (home turf of Kurt Cobain) with 0% reported returns (which is weird but so are GH denizens).
Returns for King County = 367k (26%) with is a hair above statewide return rate. This number includes returns for city of Seattle = 157k (32%)
Significance of Seattle early returns is that pattern for decades is for city returns to LAG behind rest of King County. However, for THIS election that is certainly NOT the case. Which is sign of STRONG Democratic mobilization.
Further note that very high percentage of ballots so far in King County have been returned via DROP BOXES. Conversely % using mail (return ballot postage is pre-paid) has fallen sharply. Gee, wonder why?
Yours truly was at King County Election main HQ yesterday for required Logic & Accuracy test of vote tabulation system. Have NEVER seen the place so busy two week from EDay! Busy outside with voters driving up to drop of ballots or walking if they had a voting issue. And very busy outside with workers processing the early flood of returned ballots - late surge is the norm but NOT early one - like Santa's freaking workshop,
WA State 2020 General Election - Ballot Returns as of October 21 (EDay -14)
Here are statewide ballot returns for this election two weeks out from EDay, compared with ballot returns from four years ago at same point in cycle:
2016 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.3 million cumulative ballot returns = 421,605 (9.9% of active reg)
2020 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.8 million > increase of +551k (+13%) over 2016 cumulative ballot returns = 1,208,238 (25% of active reg) > whopping increase of +787k (+187%) in early returns two weeks out versus 2016
There are wide difference in return rates among Washington's 39 counties, stemming from demographics (rural residents and older tend to voter earlier than urbanites and younger) AND also from variables such as local mail delivery patterns and problem, and the date when counties mailed out bulk of their ballots (ranging from last Wed to Fri).
Currently return rates range from high of 48% in Columbia County (very small inhabited by retired wheat farmers) down to 5% Okanogan Co (largest geographically but small pop) and 0% in Grays Harbor Co (home turf of Kurt Cobain) with 0% reported returns (which is weird but so are GH denizens).
Returns for King County = 367k (26%) with is a hair above statewide return rate. This number includes returns for city of Seattle = 157k (32%)
Significance of Seattle early returns is that pattern for decades is for city returns to LAG behind rest of King County. However, for THIS election that is certainly NOT the case. Which is sign of STRONG Democratic mobilization.
Further note that very high percentage of ballots so far in King County have been returned via DROP BOXES. Conversely % using mail (return ballot postage is pre-paid) has fallen sharply. Gee, wonder why?
Yours truly was at King County Election main HQ yesterday for required Logic & Accuracy test of vote tabulation system. Have NEVER seen the place so busy two week from EDay! Busy outside with voters driving up to drop of ballots or walking if they had a voting issue. And very busy outside with workers processing the early flood of returned ballots - late surge is the norm but NOT early one - like Santa's freaking workshop,
Interesting, thanks. This election may see the highest ever turnout ?
That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.
You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
If you keep posting LOGIC and stiff like that, then I will need to swing the ban hammer.
You are at a festival. You and your mate buy pills from the same vendor. More virtuously, you are foraging for mushrooms. You pick what you are pretty certain a rare and delicious species of cep. Your mate takes the pill/eats the mushrooms and shortly afterwards goes into convulsions. Do you say "Yebbut look at the sample size, where's the control, where's the blinding, what was the predefined primary endpoint, have you looked at potential confounders?" Or does stone cold inductive logic permit you to make valid predictions about the likely consequences of you eating the pill/mushrooms? Is it quite easy or very hard to make those predictions?
Eh?
Two pills from the same batch are the same as two elections four years apart?
An elderly Caerphilly man living alone in Markham wanted to plant his annual tomato garden, but it was very difficult work, since the ground was hard. His only son, Paul, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament:
Dear Paul, I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won’t be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over.. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days. Love, Dad
A few days later he received a letter from his son. Dear Dad, Don’t dig up that garden. That’s where the bodies are buried. Love, Paul.
At 4 a.m. the next morning, CID officers and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left. That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Dad, Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That’s the best I could do under the circumstances. Love you,
WA State 2020 General Election - Ballot Returns as of October 21 (EDay -14)
Here are statewide ballot returns for this election two weeks out from EDay, compared with ballot returns from four years ago at same point in cycle:
2016 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.3 million cumulative ballot returns = 421,605 (9.9% of active reg)
2020 General as of Tue ED -14 total active registered voters = 4.8 million > increase of +551k (+13%) over 2016 cumulative ballot returns = 1,208,238 (25% of active reg) > whopping increase of +787k (+187%) in early returns two weeks out versus 2016
There are wide difference in return rates among Washington's 39 counties, stemming from demographics (rural residents and older tend to voter earlier than urbanites and younger) AND also from variables such as local mail delivery patterns and problem, and the date when counties mailed out bulk of their ballots (ranging from last Wed to Fri).
Currently return rates range from high of 48% in Columbia County (very small inhabited by retired wheat farmers) down to 5% Okanogan Co (largest geographically but small pop) and 0% in Grays Harbor Co (home turf of Kurt Cobain) with 0% reported returns (which is weird but so are GH denizens).
Returns for King County = 367k (26%) with is a hair above statewide return rate. This number includes returns for city of Seattle = 157k (32%)
Significance of Seattle early returns is that pattern for decades is for city returns to LAG behind rest of King County. However, for THIS election that is certainly NOT the case. Which is sign of STRONG Democratic mobilization.
Further note that very high percentage of ballots so far in King County have been returned via DROP BOXES. Conversely % using mail (return ballot postage is pre-paid) has fallen sharply. Gee, wonder why?
Yours truly was at King County Election main HQ yesterday for required Logic & Accuracy test of vote tabulation system. Have NEVER seen the place so busy two week from EDay! Busy outside with voters driving up to drop of ballots or walking if they had a voting issue. And very busy outside with workers processing the early flood of returned ballots - late surge is the norm but NOT early one - like Santa's freaking workshop,
Interesting, thanks. This election may see the highest ever turnout ?
Certainly starting out looking that way out here in WA. But as has been pointed out in different (but related) context, need more than one or two data points.
FBI up now....Two foreign actors, Russia and Iran, taken action to influence the election....they have gathered personal info / voter registrations.
US national security officials have reported Iran was responsible for sending threatening emails to Democratic voters.
The emails appeared to come from a far-right pro-Trump group and were meant to "incite unrest", National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe said.
...
Mr Ratcliffe said Iran's "spoof emails" claimed to be sent by the Proud Boys in order to "intimidate voters, incite unrest and damage" President Donald Trump. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54640405
Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has dismissed as a "complete fabrication" a clip from a new Borat film appearing to show him with hands down his trousers.
Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has dismissed as a "complete fabrication" a clip from a new Borat film appearing to show him with hands down his trousers.
Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has dismissed as a "complete fabrication" a clip from a new Borat film appearing to show him with hands down his trousers.
Much as I despise Rudy G for his prickery, in his defense will testify it does seem that the older I get, the more time tucking in my pants and etc.
Giuliani is like the angry old man mentioned in "Seinfeld" who is trying to return soup at a NYC deli.
Only difference is that in Rudy's case, he's complaining because HE's spit his own mulligatawny.
If what Giuliani said is true, then Borat's intervention may assist President Trump's reelection, partly because it will look like a Democrat smear and partly by reminding people of Giuliani's claims about the Hunter Biden laptop.
Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has dismissed as a "complete fabrication" a clip from a new Borat film appearing to show him with hands down his trousers.
Much as I despise Rudy G for his prickery, in his defense will testify it does seem that the older I get, the more time tucking in my pants and etc.
Giuliani is like the angry old man mentioned in "Seinfeld" who is trying to return soup at a NYC deli.
Only difference is that in Rudy's case, he's complaining because HE's spit his own mulligatawny.
If what Giuliani said is true, then Borat's intervention may assist President Trump's reelection, partly because it will look like a Democrat smear and partly by reminding people of Giuliani's claims about the Hunter Biden laptop.
This will have zero impact on the election, save a fleeting comic relief.
Rudy G has turned himself into a national joke, in large measure due to his inane "advocacy" as Trumpsky's "counsel" - talk about "Lawyer of the Damned"!
Perhaps we should build one of those supercomputers that can be used for ad hoc academic research (and not just for the Met Office). It sounds like the sort of thing Dominic Cummings might champion.
What makes this really interesting is that the Republicans have been out scoring the Democrats in voter registration efforts in the state but does this necessarily mean that all those who’ve signed up are going to vote for Trump? That is something we don’t know.
In what universe do people register GOP in a re-election cycle only to not vote for the GOP incumbent?
Florida appears a dead heat. Another one going to Trump on election day. Trumps voters appear more solid and will react to Obama speech last night with a determination to vote.
Comments
My friend previously had COVID and is the only one of all the people the infected person met over those two days to come back negative.
They knew, and carefully and deliberately hid the evidence and funded an elaborate and long running scheme to fight against the truth of what they knew.
While they made money.
And just to save everybody's time: if someone else comes along with a completely different novel, non-addictive opioid in a year or two, they'll be lying about it too.
Remember that all the time the opiate makers were selling the line about "suddenly stopping pain relief for x million Americans". Along with their sock puppet "grass roots" groups.....
Absolutely no cash was donated to any politician whatsoever. No sir. Not illegally, anyways.....
Not everything is a competition of “who’s right” you know.
A Brazilian doctor who died with Covid-19 after volunteering for AstraZeneca and Oxford University's vaccine trial was not part of the experimental group that received the jab, according to reports. Dr João Pedro R. Feitosa, 28, is reported to have died from complications from the virus on October 15, website G1 Rio in Brazil has confirmed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8865039/Volunteer-AstraZenecas-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-dies-Brazil.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
We are not arguing about whether Trump can still win the election because we all agree, of course he can.
It really is as simple as that.
Flipping WI+MI+NC would win it for Biden without PA or FL.
For example there is no logic to believing that just because Trafalgar were closest in some states in 2016 means they will be closest in 2020, especially when you consider their tragic performance in the 2018 midterms.
Likewise there is no logic to believing that there will be a polling error in favour of Trump simply because there was one in 2016. There could equally be one in favour of the Democrats as there was in 2008.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1318197441041207296
https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319088176909242385
https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319092412325691392
https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319096538736582657
In this case we want to know things like how important incumbency is (answer: somewhat), how important the economy is (answer: somewhat) and how predictive the polls are (answer: early polls moderately predictive, late polls strongly predictive).
I understand that greater sample size in general is better than smaller samples size, provided the additional samples are relevant. But you don't add to the accuracy of your estimate of the average weight of an elephant by adding more gerbils into the mix, simply because the gerbils increase the sample size.
One in four Britons believe in QAnon-linked theories – survey
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/22/one-in-four-britons-believe-in-qanon-linked-theories-survey
Here are statewide ballot returns for this election two weeks out from EDay, compared with ballot returns from four years ago at same point in cycle:
2016 General as of Tue ED -14
total active registered voters = 4.3 million
cumulative ballot returns = 421,605 (9.9% of active reg)
2020 General as of Tue ED -14
total active registered voters = 4.8 million
> increase of +551k (+13%) over 2016
cumulative ballot returns = 1,208,238 (25% of active reg)
> whopping increase of +787k (+187%) in early returns two weeks out versus 2016
There are wide difference in return rates among Washington's 39 counties, stemming from demographics (rural residents and older tend to voter earlier than urbanites and younger) AND also from variables such as local mail delivery patterns and problem, and the date when counties mailed out bulk of their ballots (ranging from last Wed to Fri).
Currently return rates range from high of 48% in Columbia County (very small inhabited by retired wheat farmers) down to 5% Okanogan Co (largest geographically but small pop) and 0% in Grays Harbor Co (home turf of Kurt Cobain) with 0% reported returns (which is weird but so are GH denizens).
Returns for King County = 367k (26%) with is a hair above statewide return rate. This number includes returns for
city of Seattle = 157k (32%)
Significance of Seattle early returns is that pattern for decades is for city returns to LAG behind rest of King County. However, for THIS election that is certainly NOT the case. Which is sign of STRONG Democratic mobilization.
Further note that very high percentage of ballots so far in King County have been returned via DROP BOXES. Conversely % using mail (return ballot postage is pre-paid) has fallen sharply. Gee, wonder why?
Yours truly was at King County Election main HQ yesterday for required Logic & Accuracy test of vote tabulation system. Have NEVER seen the place so busy two week from EDay! Busy outside with voters driving up to drop of ballots or walking if they had a voting issue. And very busy outside with workers processing the early flood of returned ballots - late surge is the norm but NOT early one - like Santa's freaking workshop,
This election may see the highest ever turnout ?
Two pills from the same batch are the same as two elections four years apart?
Dear Paul,
I am feeling pretty sad, because it looks like I won’t be able to plant my tomato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. I know if you were here my troubles would be over.. I know you would be happy to dig the plot for me, like in the old days.
Love, Dad
A few days later he received a letter from his son.
Dear Dad,
Don’t dig up that garden. That’s where the bodies are buried.
Love,
Paul.
At 4 a.m. the next morning, CID officers and local police arrived and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left. That same day the old man received another letter from his son.
Dear Dad,
Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now. That’s the best I could do under the circumstances.
Love you,
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/14/national/science-health/face-shields-japan-izakaya/
The emails appeared to come from a far-right pro-Trump group and were meant to "incite unrest", National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe said.
...
Mr Ratcliffe said Iran's "spoof emails" claimed to be sent by the Proud Boys in order to "intimidate voters, incite unrest and damage" President Donald Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54640405
"I was tucking in my shirt after taking off the recording equipment," fthe former New York City mayor tweeted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54639876
Giuliani is like the angry old man mentioned in "Seinfeld" who is trying to return soup at a NYC deli.
Only difference is that in Rudy's case, he's complaining because HE's spit his own mulligatawny.
Rudy G has turned himself into a national joke, in large measure due to his inane "advocacy" as Trumpsky's "counsel" - talk about "Lawyer of the Damned"!
In what universe do people register GOP in a re-election cycle only to not vote for the GOP incumbent?