I appreciate your work here and mentioned it during the thread, but I’ll take the Nate’s and Wasserman actual data analysis and they said otherwise.
Looks pretty good is not the same as worst case scenario still being blue.
I thought it was confirmed that when they made their calls there wereactually 100k more votes outstanding than they thought. If that’s true, then it’s probably impossible they made a correct call.
This post is fucked up.
6 Likes
Is it? I mean like literally the fate of the world is in this elector’s hand potentially. If he’s good enough for the dems to select as an elector, perhaps he’s good enough for them to figure out a way to help him and give him some rent money? You shouldn’t have anyone as an elector who’s in financial extremis that makes them subject to external pressure. Sorry, but that’s just the case.
4 Likes
It sounds like she may have had a home and a job when she was chosen to stand as an elector, but is currently crashing with a friend.
1 Like
Joe is gonna be held up as personally curing covid, burning the midnight oil with a bunch of test tubes, hair all dishevelled. Reverse market-tank-effect.
1 Like
Her
Yeah, I mean I didn’t read the article, just reacted to the headline.
1 Like
Obviously. She’s described as “a former chair of the Clark County Democratic Party”, so it’s not like they plucked some hobo off the street. If she’s someone who fell on hard times due to the pandemic, that’s something that can be used politically.
grunching, room temperature take: electors should only be hoboes off the street
13 Likes
Iirc, the call number was 99.5%, not 95%. If it was 95%, that is lol bad, and they’d be making quite a few bad calls every cycle.
Bayesian reasoning based on the outcome alone makes it very unlikely that they had a good model that accounted for the massive amount of uncertainty in the outstanding ballots (even the number of ballots was uncertain). According to Riverman, the guy on Fox News said a Trump victory was over four standard deviations from their average forecast. So what would that make the actual outcome? 3.5 standard deviations? That is way less likely than them just making some bad assumptions in an unprecedented election.
There are a couple of other good reasons to believe it was simply a bad call. For one, they never explained it, even after taking heat from nonpartisan public figures in the field (e.g. the Nates). The other networks, who presumably also have good data people working for them, didn’t call the AZ race. And no one has advanced any theory of how they could know with a high degree of certainty that this was the maximum possible Trumpiness for how the outstanding ballots could break. They couldn’t break even 5% more Trumpy. It just seems unknowable, especially considering at the time no one had the exact number and type breakdown of the ballots.
“They fucked up” is the only thing that makes any sense imo.
1 Like
Hey but what if the Dems subjected him to financial pressure by offering policies that might help the homeless?
Why in God’s name do we have fucking female electors for Joe Biden
That’s what he said!
2 Likes
Same size for me! Of course I am on mobile…
The Wayne County Republicans want takesy-backsies
1 Like