good lord
predictit now has odds for the dems taking FLORIDA at 56-45
That is basically the inverse of the odds around May 21. And that had been stable for months.
THings are changing fast. Trump has lost control of the headlines - BLM, lafayette square, buffalo...they've done some real damage to the trump campaign.
Racket wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
You are looking at this with a math lens... math is not stats. You actually can model flexibly and the results can often be meaningful... whether you want to engage in predictive analysis, forecasting, or some other study. And you can work backwards from results and take a top down vs bottom up approach. When doing statistical analysis you can learn a lot about the quality of the data points by performing unadulterated analysis, and still draw meaningful and valid inference.
This is incorrect. It's like saying since you can apply the central limit theorem to any set of data. You can't. There are very important assumptions that must be proved first. You also seem to reject the existence of any a priori statistics which is false. "Unadulterated analysis" and "modeling flexibility" are not terms I've seen so I can't really speak to it.
Specifically for what we're talking about, mean reversion rejects polling as a sequence of random walks which significantly changes the probability space and the metric (and the measure (and the filter (and the sub algebra))).
1) I can read articles too, and I tend to cite them 2) Polling is not as good for applying this sort of statistical analysis given the time scale issues/noise, but it's certainly not a crime to discuss mean reversion with regard to polling data. It has it's flaws, but should not be discarded on the basis of the random walk argument. You are maintaining a by the letter view of the application of mean reversion, but we are just having a broad and non-technical discussion about potential tendency of polling results to redirect to average - we just happened to use that term. Why get into an academic argument about it.
Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
In order for the economy to show any real comeback there would have to be strong business travel and a solid vacation season this summer.
You need people filling concert and sports stadiums.
You need high traffic in malls.
No you don't. You need people to spend money. Doesn't really matter what it's spent on. As long as the American consumer has money, they're gonna spend it. Like agip said, the amount of money getting sloshed around by the Federal Reserve is not to be underestimated
Except that stimulus money is not making it's way to the pocket of the people hurting the most. Those checks with trump's emblem... A tiny fraction of the package passed. People need to obtain money to spend it, and if they don't have that disposable income they will spend on essentials to get by. We are 37 million jobs down from the high - that will have a significant impact on spending for a long while.
johnny99 wrote:
Trump whines about a CNN poll, get lawyered up. Wants everyone to "cease and desist" from reporting any bad news about him.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/trump-campaign-cnn-poll/index.html
I actually think trump believes the polls are rigged. He has no one around him telling him he might be wrong, and even worse he is being told he's right by "professionals". He's an unstable idiot.
Trollminator wrote:
Racket wrote:
This is incorrect. It's like saying since you can apply the central limit theorem to any set of data. You can't. There are very important assumptions that must be proved first. You also seem to reject the existence of any a priori statistics which is false. "Unadulterated analysis" and "modeling flexibility" are not terms I've seen so I can't really speak to it.
Specifically for what we're talking about, mean reversion rejects polling as a sequence of random walks which significantly changes the probability space and the metric (and the measure (and the filter (and the sub algebra))).
1) I can read articles too, and I tend to cite them 2) Polling is not as good for applying this sort of statistical analysis given the time scale issues/noise, but it's certainly not a crime to discuss mean reversion with regard to polling data. It has it's flaws, but should not be discarded on the basis of the random walk argument. You are maintaining a by the letter view of the application of mean reversion, but we are just having a broad and non-technical discussion about potential tendency of polling results to redirect to average - we just happened to use that term. Why get into an academic argument about it.
How about because the underlying assumptions granted by accepting mean reversion is fundamental to the very nature of the poll itself?
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
In order for the economy to show any real comeback there would have to be strong business travel and a solid vacation season this summer.
You need people filling concert and sports stadiums.
You need high traffic in malls.
I don't see that happening, do you?
I hope to see that next year, but we're into June and these plans would have been made by now for this summer season.
Q1 was negative. Q2 will be negative.
Q3 gets reported a few weeks before the election to look back and see how well things went in July, August and September.
It may uptick over 2020Q2 but will be a drop from 2019Q2.
And it may be quite a feat to bring the unemployment back under 10% by October.
Many of the current "employed" aren't working or making money. They just haven't been terminated by their employers. They're on hold.
What are the scenarios that make a decent looking economy heading into November?
airline traffic is build. But is still severely depressed.
After bottoming out on April 14 at around 87,000 passengers a day, the Transportation Security Administration is reporting steady, if slow, growth in travel as many states begin lifting COVID-19 restrictions. By the first week in June, the TSA said total “traveler throughput” had risen to more than 400,000 passengers a day in the U.S. If that sounds like a healthy number, consider in the same period last year averaged about 2.5 million passengers a day. Overall in 2020, the number of passengers who traveled in April and May was just 10 percent of the total from the year before.
LOL and this all assumes that COVID is behind us. The best case scenarios for the economy into the fall are pretty bad. What happens when the country sees another spike of COVID deaths in October just as trump is taking early victory laps and golfing his way to the election? This country would have to be really messed up to reelect him. Bush Sr, who was a pretty good leader lost on much less than all trump has going against him.
Trollminator wrote:
Racket wrote:
No you don't. You need people to spend money. Doesn't really matter what it's spent on. As long as the American consumer has money, they're gonna spend it. Like agip said, the amount of money getting sloshed around by the Federal Reserve is not to be underestimated
Except that stimulus money is not making it's way to the pocket of the people hurting the most. Those checks with trump's emblem... A tiny fraction of the package passed. People need to obtain money to spend it, and if they don't have that disposable income they will spend on essentials to get by. We are 37 million jobs down from the high - that will have a significant impact on spending for a long while.
No one knows if this will work and whether or not it was too much or too little. The scope of the issue is unprecedented
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
Then think about how those passengers normally flying will stay at hotel.
So hotel businesses is down.
And of course they would eat out, but we know that's down locally as well.
And people working for airlines, hotels and restaurants have less money to spend in other sectors of the economy.
Not sure you comprehend how much money the fed and gummint hosed down the economy with.
it's a lot. A very large number. Fleets of helicopters, dumping giant sacks of money.
Today we're seeing signs of inflation picking up. that's not a sign of lack of spending.
They will need to dump more sacks of money soon as many of the programs expire.
But that's going to be a lot harder to do this time since Republicans are required to act as if COVID-19 no longer exists and unemployment is no longer a problem.
Racket wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
1) I can read articles too, and I tend to cite them 2) Polling is not as good for applying this sort of statistical analysis given the time scale issues/noise, but it's certainly not a crime to discuss mean reversion with regard to polling data. It has it's flaws, but should not be discarded on the basis of the random walk argument. You are maintaining a by the letter view of the application of mean reversion, but we are just having a broad and non-technical discussion about potential tendency of polling results to redirect to average - we just happened to use that term. Why get into an academic argument about it.
How about because the underlying assumptions granted by accepting mean reversion is fundamental to the very nature of the poll itself?
You didn't get the hint that agip threw mean reversion out there without intending to go into philosophical and substantive ramblings. This is LRC and you know why he used the term. Anyway, I award you the internet if it makes you happy.
Racket wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Except that stimulus money is not making it's way to the pocket of the people hurting the most. Those checks with trump's emblem... A tiny fraction of the package passed. People need to obtain money to spend it, and if they don't have that disposable income they will spend on essentials to get by. We are 37 million jobs down from the high - that will have a significant impact on spending for a long while.
No one knows if this will work and whether or not it was too much or too little. The scope of the issue is unprecedented
We don't know the future but it's safe to say we are in much deeper economic doo-doo than in 2008/9 and unlike that period it's the whole world at the same time.
johnny99 wrote:
Trump whines about a CNN poll, get lawyered up. Wants everyone to "cease and desist" from reporting any bad news about him.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/trump-campaign-cnn-poll/index.html
That's hillarious.
I loved this part of CNN's response:
"To my knowledge, this is the first time in its 40-year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN's polling results," Vigilante wrote in his response. "To the extent we have received legal threats from political leaders in the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
Not sure you comprehend how much money the fed and gummint hosed down the economy with.
it's a lot. A very large number. Fleets of helicopters, dumping giant sacks of money.
Today we're seeing signs of inflation picking up. that's not a sign of lack of spending.
They will need to dump more sacks of money soon as many of the programs expire.
But that's going to be a lot harder to do this time since Republicans are required to act as if COVID-19 no longer exists and unemployment is no longer a problem.
Plus more than a million small businesses went under permanently despite the stimulus. The bailout was largely to the biggest corporations which by the way will absolutely still lay a lot of people off given the massive drop in demand and growth prospect. It's just another transfer of wealth exercise from the taxpayer to the wealthiest. But don't worry, surely trickle down will come to the rescue :)
Fat hurts wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
Trump whines about a CNN poll, get lawyered up. Wants everyone to "cease and desist" from reporting any bad news about him.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/politics/trump-campaign-cnn-poll/index.htmlThat's hillarious.
I loved this part of CNN's response:
"To my knowledge, this is the first time in its 40-year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN's polling results," Vigilante wrote in his response. "To the extent we have received legal threats from political leaders in the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.
Hopefully, every insane action trump takes results in more fired up Dems than mouth breathers.
Trollminator wrote:
Racket wrote:
How about because the underlying assumptions granted by accepting mean reversion is fundamental to the very nature of the poll itself?
You didn't get the hint that agip threw mean reversion out there without intending to go into philosophical and substantive ramblings. This is LRC and you know why he used the term. Anyway, I award you the internet if it makes you happy.
You literally came at me with a bunch of weird and incorrect a posteriori concepts in stats that didn't make sense, after I ceded the fact that mean reversion can be used and put up the research to the fact....
and you just expected to get away with it?
Pick a non-math subject next time you wanna pull the wool over my eyes.
Racket wrote:
Please take my advice, as someone with a PhD in math, that you should probably not repeat that line every again lol.
No offense, but I just thought you might want to be aware of what an insecure douche bag you look like with your "Look at how superior I am with my math PhD" thing.
Not a good look.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
They will need to dump more sacks of money soon as many of the programs expire.
But that's going to be a lot harder to do this time since Republicans are required to act as if COVID-19 no longer exists and unemployment is no longer a problem.
Plus more than a million small businesses went under permanently despite the stimulus.
Last I saw was 100k, not a million. More than happy to sign onto your figure if you have a source.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497519-more-than-100000-small-businesses-have-permanently1100 wrote:
Racket wrote:
Please take my advice, as someone with a PhD in math, that you should probably not repeat that line every again lol.
No offense, but I just thought you might want to be aware of what an insecure douche bag you look like with your "Look at how superior I am with my math PhD" thing.
Not a good look.
I'm sorry
agip wrote:
Not sure you comprehend how much money the fed and gummint hosed down the economy with.
it's a lot. A very large number. Fleets of helicopters, dumping giant sacks of money.
Today we're seeing signs of inflation picking up. that's not a sign of lack of spending.
I know I got some stimulus money. And the company I work for is doing fine.
But I am not getting on an airplane this year. My family is not traveling to stay in a hotel.
My company has suspended air travel for service and sales.
The heaps of money aren't getting to everyone equally.
I'm spending more on Amazon, Target and Best Buy, for example.
I haven't bought any new clothes in a retail store.
That isn't just anecdotal, that's pretty standard for a lot of people and businesses.
Millions of people are out work in industries that won't snap back quickly.
And some are getting very rich if they are in the right business.
A one time $1,200 payment doesn't do much for people without income.
The extra unemployment benefits help if they can get it.
But people need to work and earn, and a lot of people aren't earning despite all of that federal money you mentioned.
The trillions honestly aren't enough or aren't going to the right places.
How has this money helped the typical restaurant server or hotel maid?
That's a lot of Americans.
Trollminator wrote:
Racket wrote:
No one knows if this will work and whether or not it was too much or too little. The scope of the issue is unprecedented
We don't know the future but it's safe to say we are in much deeper economic doo-doo than in 2008/9 and unlike that period it's the whole world at the same time.
I'm not quite that pessimistic though I remain very worried.
The government did show us the money a lot faster this time than in 2008/9. Most are sort of OK at the moment and there is still the chance that congress will come through and keep it that way.
If we do get a vaccine by early next year we could see a really fast recovery instead of the slow, steady slog we saw in 2008 and the following years.
I agree that things are very bad, especially if you are in the lower classes or live in a poor country. But a V-shaped recovery is still possible. Or maybe I should say U-shaped.
Racket wrote:
L L wrote:
In order for the economy to show any real comeback there would have to be strong business travel and a solid vacation season this summer.
You need people filling concert and sports stadiums.
You need high traffic in malls.
You need high traffic in malls.
I don't see that happening, do you?
I hope to see that next year, but we're into June and these plans would have been made by now for this summer season.
Q1 was negative. Q2 will be negative.
Q3 gets reported a few weeks before the election to look back and see how well things went in July, August and September.
It may uptick over 2020Q2 but will be a drop from 2019Q2.
And it may be quite a feat to bring the unemployment back under 10% by October.
Many of the current "employed" aren't working or making money. They just haven't been terminated by their employers. They're on hold.
What are the scenarios that make a decent looking economy heading into November?
No you don't. You need people to spend money. Doesn't really matter what it's spent on. As long as the American consumer has money, they're gonna spend it. Like agip said, the amount of money getting sloshed around by the Federal Reserve is not to be underestimated
In italics I've restored the part of LL's comment that wasn't quoted in your response and bolded the literal bottom line of the comment.
Your choice whether you want to address that point or not, but as long as major sectors of the economy are running well below normal it's not at all clear what's going to make up for that loss in trade and employment. We may well not be under strict lock down come election day, but it's doubtful we'll be anywhere near normal economic activity.
Even with a hypothetically perfect US response to COVID, whatever that might have been, the economy would suffer and the president would take a hit.