Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The System wrote:0/10
Take your meds, we don't need another lib shooting members of Congress.
0/10
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The System wrote:0/10
Take your meds, we don't need another lib shooting members of Congress.
0/10
And "Donald Trump will never be POTUS"😆
agip is on the road to another epic "FAGpole."
So you type 7 sentences. 5 of which are attacks, 1 is a sarcastic question, and in the 1 where you try to make a qualitative point, you fumble it badly. Bravo!
Agip used the term "cold clear accuracy" when describing the national polling data. That is simply not the case. This isn't a single poll we're talking about where one can say "well, 4 is close to 2." We're talking about many, many polls, with most showing at least +4 for HRC. In the final 2-3 weeks they looked even more ridiculous, with some topping +10!!
If 90% of the polls are showing someone winning by 4 or more, and the actual result ends up only +2, I can guarantee the polling institutes themselves would not claim that they were "accurate" in their polling.
Learn what standard deviation and confidence intervals are and get back to me on if the poling was "accurate."
imagine this! if the polls had forecasted a dead heat and Trump won by 0.1%....the result would have been off by...by...an infinite number!
Wow, so you are going to double down on stupid, huh? Good for you.
This is what you said, is it not?
"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."
Are you really too stupid to realize how absurd that is? Seriously?
Here's another example for you, on the off chance you actually have a few functioning brain cells.
A) polls predict 5% win, actual result is 1% win
B) polls predict 1% win, actual result is 5% win
Now, according to your brilliant calculations, for A) 5.0% prediction is off by 400% ! On the other hand, B) is off by only 80% .
Hey yeah, you're really good at math, bud!
Here's a hint for you in the future - the fact that you can divide two numbers does not make the result meaningful.
Now please do try to stop advertising your stupidity. It is embarrassing to witness.
Hilary was not crooked. This is ten years of fake news supported by dolts like you.
Speaking of doubling down, it appears you still haven't grasped the concept of standard deviation or confidence intervals.
Your attempt at quantitative analysis is amusing. You're statement is completely irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the national polls.
Here's all you need to know: With the subject polling data, there was roughly a five percent (5%) chance that the result would be 2%.
If you think that is "cold clear accuracy", then I guess we should just end this discussion.
Read the first paragraph of this article from 538:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/You see what he refers to as "accurate"? 7.3 to 7.6. That's pretty accurate. You see what he says is not accurate? 1.2 tom 3.9.
Do we need to continue this idiotic discussion?
EPIC Flagpole wrote:
EPIC Flagpole wrote:Speaking of doubling down, it appears you still haven't grasped the concept of standard deviation or confidence intervals.
Your attempt at quantitative analysis is amusing. You're statement is completely irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the national polls.
Here's all you need to know: With the subject polling data, there was roughly a five percent (5%) chance that the result would be 2%.
If you think that is "cold clear accuracy", then I guess we should just end this discussion.
Read the first paragraph of this article from 538:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/You see what he refers to as "accurate"? 7.3 to 7.6. That's pretty accurate. You see what he says is not accurate? 1.2 tom 3.9.
Do we need to continue this idiotic discussion?
obviously we should be defining "accuracy" in terms appropriate to polling.
When a poll gets within a point or two the actual election result, that is 'accurate' in polling terms.
and guess what?
The HRC vs. Trump polls were within that range on average.
If you want to define "accurate" in terms of electron microscopes, then we are using the word differently.
Hillary Clinton was and still is as crooked as they come, a pathological liar. Only dolts like you follow her. Ever hear of Whitewater? Crooks to the nth degree. You are a dumb little person and you have my pity.
SAW 777 wrote:
Hilary was not crooked. This is ten years of fake news supported by dolts like you.
OK, let me make this simple for you. Here is your statement (again):
"3.3 is off of the actual result of 2.1 by a factor of 1.57 (or "57% larger than 2.1"). That is not at all "cold clear accuracy." The bulk of the results (the "+4") were off the actual outcome by a factor of 2. That is not good."
Now are you going to try to defend those calculations (effectively dividing by the actual 2.1 figure) as being meaningful and relevant - as being appropriate to anything (other than showing off a profound level of ignorance?
Or are you just going to admit that it was an incredibly stupid thing to post by avoiding addressing it once again?
Take your choice, admit to stupidity directly or admit to stupidity by failing to defend what you posted? What's it going to be?
P.s. How did they make their millions? On speeches, give me a break you simpleton.
SAW 777 wrote:
Hilary was not crooked. This is ten years of fake news supported by dolts like you.
Geez, why do you think the twitter accounts on Trump are all negative? Because an algorithm was put in place and only negative things stick to his account. Don't believe me, try to put something positive on it oh bright one. The media is doing this and you're the type of brainless slug that they are targeting.
My lord you're dense. It certainly is meaningful and relevant, as being off by such a factor is not "cold clear accuracy", which was my point [that you continue to omit for some reason]. If the figure was 2.1 vs 2.2, or even 2.1 vs 2.5, I'd agree it was pretty accurate, as these are both low enough figures AND within an acceptable tolerance to be considered accurate (the standard deviation and confidence interval also supports this theory by the way). 2.1 vs 3.3, especially when including an outlier like the +2 for Trump, certainly does not reflect "cold clear accuracy", which again, was the point. (Removing the outlier results in 2.1 vs 3.8, which is far less "accurate", considering just a single poll in the sample even matches the 2.1 figure!)
We shouldn't skew the term "accurate" by performing relative analyses for polls. Accurate means exact ("cold clear" or otherwise). These polls were far from exact.
There is nothing illegal about that nor is there anything illegal about running a foundation that rakes in a lot of money. It might not be the ethos you like but it is not crooked.
Buzzard Lightyear wrote:
P.s. How did they make their millions? On speeches, give me a break you simpleton.
SAW 777 wrote:Hilary was not crooked. This is ten years of fake news supported by dolts like you.
Your ignorance is hilarious.
Or perhaps your trolling is just pretty cute.
Either way, you are dismissed.
Yes, it is illegal, when you KEEP the majority of the money. Do you know how much has been estimated that they kept themselves, aka stole?Obviously, you have no ethos. Intelligence are common sense aren't your strong areas. You must be the person that family members avoid at parties.
SAW 777 wrote:
There is nothing illegal about that nor is there anything illegal about running a foundation that rakes in a lot of money. It might not be the ethos you like but it is not crooked.
Buzzard Lightyear wrote:P.s. How did they make their millions? On speeches, give me a break you simpleton.
Intelligence AND common sense...before you have something to make yourself feel good about:):):):):):)
God help you if you actually believe they aren't crooked. Ever hear of Dick Morris? Of course you haven't. How about David Geffen? Please, educate yourself quickly before it's too late.
Not that much. Reality doesn't support your BS. They had a highly rated charity that donated a huge percentage of their monies by all accounts (except for the fake ones such as yours).
Dick Morris - mostly smoke and mirrors on your end:
http://www.snopes.com/dick-morris-hillary-clinton/
Foundation a slush fund also false.
Don't be stupid.