History in the Making?

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
Is history about to be made? In a few hours the polls open for the mid-term elections in the US.

I heard earlier this evening that 5 BILLION has been spent so far. 5 billion. That alone is historic.

How much of that 5 billion goes for the professional pollsters? Have you noticed how all the polls are so close this time........and how no pollster dares commit to firm prediction.

America's IQ test starts shortly.

This post will self delete in about 24 hours or so.
 

Raymond Genovese

Joined Mar 5, 2016
1,653
I enjoy voting and I usually go to the polls in person and on Election Day proper rather than early or absentee voting. There is much that is very cool about the whole process.

History is made with every moment. That is the nature of time. The impact of each moment is another matter, but one could argue that, philosophically, they all have equivalent impact since they are all part of the same timeline.

A tax that I could get behind wholeheartedly would be a 75% surcharge on all political advertising of any kind, above some level of spending. The funds could be earmarked for the protection of voting in all forms. Alternatively, the cash could just be given to me as compensation for my suffering :).

Some polls are close, some are not.

I have always been hard on polling and this cycle, maybe even more so. Here is my deal:

In the classic poll, take a representative sample of the voting population and then you characterize that sample toward predicting the winner. The prediction versus the observed outcome should be as publicly available as the poll. I care who was accurate and who was not accurate. If your polling sucks, that needs to be publicized as much as when an electronic product or any product you make sucks. You can get away with your prediction until the last one, then you get graded. How well/poor you did is something normally taken into account with any skill assessment, why should it be any different for pollsters. In the absence of other information, past performance is the best predictor of future performance. The next time the work product from that that polling organization gets publicized; their historical accuracy also needs to be publicized.

Election polls, in general, are aimed at one prediction: who will win. Not how it will turn out if only “likely” voters vote, not how an age band will vote and not any of that BS. How will the final result turn out, that’s the deal and if you screw it up, there have to be some consequence. If the pollster can’t figure out the population that they are attempting to sample in a representative fashion, then they should take up something else – precognition as entertainment is an affront.

Nor do I let the Nate Silver polling style slide. While he is very well respected (I read and enjoyed his book: The Signal and the Noise), assigning a probability to a voting outcome is, in many ways, a huge cop-out. I can say with as much certainty that I care to profess that the beige-chartreuse-root beer party will win the whatever with a probability of .999999, and regardless of the outcome, there is no effect on the assessment of accuracy of the prediction, so long as the probability was >0 and <1.0. True, you could track all of them until you have enough data (over a period of many years) to make some statement on how accurate the probabilities were, but it is just not done.

Finally, I demand compensation for sampling my thinking, yet the pollsters never offer any. It’s my data, if you want it then pay up.

We deserve better; even on Amazon, you get to rate the product.
 

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
I, am, so, ready to get back to mail-order brides and male enhancement ads on the Internet instead of the election racket.


Is he running again?

Wish he ran in my district. He would have my vote.

My taxes are too damn high.


Voted against this one

https://triblive.com/local/alleghen...-county-tax-increase-to-fund-kids-programming

You should see the commercials for supporting it. Cute little kids that would break your heart. Well as always taxes like this usually don't go for what it is intended. I voted against. Plenty of my taxes are already going to similar programs. Never had a kid yet I pay huge school taxes. I am already paying for someone else's kid. Enough is enough.
 

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
As for the topic. I have long said there should be limits on what can be spent on elections. And what can be donated. No one person or group should be able to buy influence just because they have the cash. Set a $1oK limit on any individual or entity. Your donation to groups goes to you individual limit.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
As for the topic. I have long said there should be limits on what can be spent on elections. And what can be donated. No one person or group should be able to buy influence just because they have the cash. Set a $1oK limit on any individual or entity. Your donation to groups goes to you individual limit.
You can thank the supreme's for that. Their view in Citizens United opened up the can of worms we live with today. But like when it was enacted many here will soon tell me how I'm wrong.

Thought politics was off limits? But recent posts seem to show, that like automotive topics, it is now allowed! Remember what happened here before!!!!!?????
 

Thread Starter

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,928
Let them spend all they want. It exposes them. And it's the only thing they really pay for!!!

The advantage to election is not money. The last election proves that.

What matters is the biased coverage. Which is not controlled by money. It's controlled and the responsibility of our free press. To truthfully inform the public.

The press is NOT supposed to speak the truth to the powerful. It's suppose to speak the truth to the people. So the people can decide.....not the press. A newsman used to believe the lowest of job duties was to interview a politician. Any politician. That changed with JFK.

I did not vote for a politician today. I voted against our free press. Phony journalists and news organizations.

To me it was a gullibility test.

Edit: How much of that 5 billion did the press get?
 
Last edited:

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
The press is NOT supposed to speak the truth to the powerful. It's suppose to speak the truth to the people. So the people can decide.....not the press. A newsman used to believe the lowest of job duties was to interview a politician. Any politician.
So you're saying Fox is wrong? They have the only single person audience. All of their programing is directed to one person and others just get to see it.
 
Top