rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 4:42:34 AM permalink
Wow, unless I'm mistaken, it seemed like every poll I saw about the Reid/Angle race always had Angle ahead, like 4-5%. I'm not sure who the heck they were polling.

Nomination for worst bet ever: Meg Whitman of California. 160 million of her own money.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 7:57:52 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Nomination for worst bet ever: Meg Whitman of California. 160 million of her own money.



Maybe. On the other hand, how much of his own money did Ross Perot spend in his campaign?

As to bad polls, I have three words: "Dewey Beats Truman"
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
matilda
matilda
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 317
Joined: Feb 4, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 8:59:08 AM permalink
Wikipedia say Perot spent 65.4 million of his own money.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:06:56 AM permalink
I did well on my election bets, despite laying 3 to 1 on Angle a few days ago, based on my election math, which showed Angle had an 85% chance of winning. I still had lots more on Reid from earlier in the race.

Reid 50%
Angle 45%
Other 5%

Not only did Reid win, but won by 5 points. After that I'm going to be more skeptical about polls. I also wonder who the 5% were that wasted their votes on other candidates or "none of the above." Did we learn nothing from the 2000 presidential election?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:16:42 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I did well on my election bets, despite laying 3 to 1 on Angle a few days ago, based on my election math, which showed Angle had an 85% chance of winning. I still had lots more on Reid from earlier in the race.

Reid 50%
Angle 45%
Other 5%

Not only did Reid win, but won by 5 points. After that I'm going to be more skeptical about polls. I also wonder who the 5% were that wasted their votes on other candidates or "none of the above." Did we learn nothing from the 2000 presidential election?



Well, if you don't actually want either candidate that's offered, what are you supposed to do--hold your nose and vote for the one you hate the least? Sounds like making an endorsement that the candidate doesn't deserve, and doesn't reflect your true opinions. "None of the above" or votes for third party candidates are discounted because they are in the small minority, not because they are somehow inherently less meaningful, or that they are "wasted" just because the third party has no realistic chance of winning. I don't think your vote is wasted simply because you don't vote for one or the other of the two candidates that the machine has chosen for you.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
crazyiam
crazyiam
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 44
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:26:38 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I did well on my election bets, despite laying 3 to 1 on Angle a few days ago, based on my election math, which showed Angle had an 85% chance of winning. I still had lots more on Reid from earlier in the race.

Reid 50%
Angle 45%
Other 5%

Not only did Reid win, but won by 5 points. After that I'm going to be more skeptical about polls. I also wonder who the 5% were that wasted their votes on other candidates or "none of the above." Did we learn nothing from the 2000 presidential election?



Its about time we went to any other system of voting such as instant runoff. I read a math paper with about 6 or 7 alternatives once. They showed all could be gamed, but all were also superior to our system in multi-way races. I wouldn't be surprised if 3rd party candidates votes were much higher if this changed.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 10:26:07 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Well, if you don't actually want either candidate that's offered, what are you supposed to do--hold your nose and vote for the one you hate the least? Sounds like making an endorsement that the candidate doesn't deserve, and doesn't reflect your true opinions. "None of the above" or votes for third party candidates are discounted because they are in the small minority, not because they are somehow inherently less meaningful, or that they are "wasted" just because the third party has no realistic chance of winning. I don't think your vote is wasted simply because you don't vote for one or the other of the two candidates that the machine has chosen for you.



Yes, you should hold your nose, unless you dislike both candidates exactly equally. Sometimes in life we have to choose the lesser sin.

I have no problem with voting for third party candidates, as a statement vote, in non-competitive races. I did so myself lots of times in Maryland, which is solid blue state. As I recall, I voted for Nader in 1996. However, in an extremely close race, I think you should try to do a vote swap, if you can. If you can't, then I think your interests are better served by holding your nose and going with the lesser sin. Just my opinion. I know some will vehemently disagree with it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
JerryLogan
JerryLogan
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 1344
Joined: Jun 28, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 10:32:12 AM permalink
Reid won but he's been reduced to zilch after yesterday's massacre. The most important outcome was how his, Obama's and Pelosi's methodologies and idealogies are no longer going to cut it with the majority of the American people. Yet here's the President, on TV right now, BS'ing and lying to us all over again about listening to Republican ideas and "working together" in the next two years. He's also gun shy about answering if he thought his stupid jamming of the new Health Care bill down our throats was the right thing to do.

Now let's just sit back and watch this phony bury himself deeper as the months go by. By the way, if you have a chance turn on the quacks on MSNBC and watch the PAIN in their presentations today. It's so precious!
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 10:46:47 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Not only did Reid win, but won by 5 points. After that I'm going to be more skeptical about polls.



I'll repeat myself:

"Dewey beats Truman"

I think that was back in 1948. You'd think the science has advanced since then, but it still retains a degree of uncertainty. After all, often you're trying to measure the intent of people who don't know what they intend to do.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:21:08 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

After all, often you're trying to measure the intent of people who don't know what they intend to do.



I don't think that is the reason for the Dewey-Truman poll. My high school history teacher (a great man) said it was because it was based on a phone poll, and back then a phone was a luxury. So owning a phone on would have been correlated to being wealthy, which would have been correlated to voting Republican, which would have been correlated to voting for Dewey.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:44:21 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I'll repeat myself:

"Dewey beats Truman".


Jeez. One of the greatest incorrect headlines in history, and you quoted it incorrectly!



FYI: Those photos came from www.DeweyDefeatsTruman.com, a presidential memoribilia website.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:02:14 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Yes, you should hold your nose, unless you dislike both candidates exactly equally. Sometimes in life we have to choose the lesser sin.

I have no problem with voting for third party candidates, as a statement vote, in non-competitive races. I did so myself lots of times in Maryland, which is solid blue state. As I recall, I voted for Nader in 1996. However, in an extremely close race, I think you should try to do a vote swap, if you can. If you can't, then I your interests are better served by holding your nose and going with the lesser sin. Just my opinion. I know some will vehemently disagree with it.



My problem with that thinking is that it pretty much dooms the chances of a viable third party ever existing. If we view a vote for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning as "wasted", then why vote at all, except in elections where the outcome is in doubt? Where I live, no Republican has a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything. Does that mean that anyone who intends to vote Republican might as well stay home, because his vote will be "wasted", i.e., won't affect the outcome? (If 100% of registered Republicans in my district voted, and 30% of registered Democrats did, the Democratic candidate would still win.)

At what threshold would you view a vote for a third party candidate as NOT "wasted"? When he wins 2% of the vote? 8%? 16% (which is what Perot got in 1994, if memory serves)? And why is such a vote merely a "statement vote", as you put it? Wasn't your vote for Nader an actual vote, in that he was the one of the candidates that you would actually have wanted to get the job?

I also disagree that the only time you should not vote for either of the major parties is when you dislike each candidate equally. If I feel that neither is fit for the job, why would I hire either? I felt in 2008 that McCain would make a lousy President, but Obama would make a terrible one, so even if I felt McCain was the lesser of two evils, why would I "waste" my vote by endorsing someone I did not, in fact, want to be President?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:03:55 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Maybe. On the other hand, how much of his own money did Ross Perot spend in his campaign?

As to bad polls, I have three words: "Dewey Beats Truman"



One thing you could definitely say about Perot, then Whitman: no one could ever buy them. Sometimes I think that's the single most important consideration.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:18:26 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I don't think that is the reason for the Dewey-Truman poll. My high school history teacher (a great man) said it was because it was based on a phone poll, and back then a phone was a luxury.



I got that story on a very simplistic course on statistics I took once. It still is one of the greatest blunders of all time.

But I stand by my statement regarding intent, if for subsequent polls. Lots of people change their mind about such things three times a day.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:25:07 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

I got that story on a very simplistic course on statistics I took once. It still is one of the greatest blunders of all time.

But I stand by my statement regarding intent, if for subsequent polls. Lots of people change their mind about such things three times a day.

If people didn't change their minds, there would be little or no reason for campaigning (which some year's I have thought might be a good thing.) The polls are intended to help estimate what people are thinking at that moment, how their thinking may have changed since the last poll, and how much the thinking would need to change further in order to make a difference in the final vote.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 4:11:07 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

Jeez. One of the greatest incorrect headlines in history, and you quoted it incorrectly!



The meaning is the same. Next time I won't add quotation marks.

If the headline were done today, it would read "beats" rather than "defeats."
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 5:23:48 PM permalink
Quote: JerryLogan

By the way, if you have a chance turn on the quacks on MSNBC and watch the PAIN in their presentations today. It's so precious!



I flipped over to MSNBC a little last night. They were already going nuts. And outright rude to anyone from the GOP who was polite enough to give an interview to such a known, hostile outfit.

Reid did suprise me. He was 4-5% behind, but from what I heard casino execs and unions both had a far better ground force. Could explain how an extremist like Reid could win by such a large margin in a wave election.

To me it says a lot that the Dems had to put so much into a firewall election of their leader in the senate. 2012 is now wide open.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Keyser
Keyser
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2106
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 5:31:58 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Not only did Reid win, but won by 5 points. After that I'm going to be more skeptical about polls.



After that I would be more skeptical of Reid, not the polls. I don't believe he legitimately won the election.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 5:51:12 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

If people didn't change their minds, there would be little or no reason for campaigning (which some year's I have thought might be a good thing.)



Sure. But there are degrees in these things.

First you have the extreme partisans who'll vote their party, whichever it is, even if it ran Hitler as a candidate. Campaigning does nothing for these people, except as they may support such campaigns.

Next you have partisans who are inclined to vote for their party regardless of who runs, but who will honestly evaluate their candidate. Campaigning may ahve an effect on them, but they are more likely to abstain if they don't want to support a particular candidate.

Next you have independents, who will evaluate both candidates, and even third-party ones, and vote or not as they see fit. Campaigning should ahve an effect on them, but the mroe they see perosnal attacks the more they get turned off from the process.

Last you have the perennially undecided and the ignorant. Either they can't amke up their minds, or they don't care to do so. It's a toss-up whether they'll vote or not. They may like personal attacks, as they're entertaining if not particularly infomrative. They don't know what they want in a candidate and may make up their minds at the booth, if they don't simply select at random. Of course they're influenced by campaigns, but who know how.

Thsi doesn't necessarily apply to primary elections, of course.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:04:50 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Sure. But there are degrees in these things.


Next you have independents, who will evaluate both candidates, and even third-party ones, and vote or not as they see fit. Campaigning should ahve an effect on them, but the mroe they see perosnal attacks the more they get turned off from the process.

Last you have the perennially undecided and the ignorant. Either they can't amke up their minds, or they don't care to do so. It's a toss-up whether they'll vote or not. They may like personal attacks, as they're entertaining if not particularly infomrative. They don't know what they want in a candidate and may make up their minds at the booth, if they don't simply select at random. Of course they're influenced by campaigns, but who know how.

Thsi doesn't necessarily apply to primary elections, of course.




I have always wonderd how much most campaigning helps. Primaries aside, it seems proven that 90% of the population is party-loyal, even if they claim to be "independents." I have heard the stupidest reasons to pick someone (eg: woman I met who liked Gore because he was handsome.") Some don't have a clue how government even works. I asked this quiz question to a woman I work with and she could not get it. "What chamber of congress does the Speaker of the House preside over?" Yes, you read that right. So how many people really take time to inform themselves and make a decision? 5%???

Where I think it does matter is enthusiasm and turnout. If not for how radical I felt Obama was I would have not voted for POTUS in 2008. This year the Tea Party Movement had me jazzed to vote from the start. I was not alone.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
November 3rd, 2010 at 6:15:08 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

The meaning is the same. Next time I won't add quotation marks.

If the headline were done today, it would read "beats" rather than "defeats."



I beat my wife. At chess, that is.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
  • Jump to: