Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter

A lovely message:

FACT-CHECK: In the days prior to his (victorious) election to Montana's at-large congressional seat, Greg Gianforte 'body-slammed' a Guardian reporter named Ben Jacobs. He subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanour assault.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fruitvilla said:

The question I have is how did Villianusa  ...  get to the point where he thought it was evidence for his position?

He took it at face value where it appears to show votes being deducted from Trump.

Which is admittedly pretty alarming. But misrepresents the reality.

I wasn't trying to shit on Villianusa. Just trying to show him why the chart he has presented is incorrect

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

 

 

 

So you believe an anti fascist group stopped the electoral college count that was about to confirm the loss of a fascist wannabe dictator ?

Cool .

 

I imagine Trump is counting on there being more fools like this to be honest . Won't be long before he's retweeting "It was Antifa" bollocks.

Trump Supporters are already blaming antifa, they can’t own their own coup and have to blame someone else 🙄

this is what you get from a guy who never takes responsibility for anything and blames it on everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, villianusa said:

The Department of Defense

Partly true  Wiki ...

The president of the United States is the commander-in-chief for the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the Secretary of Defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree that shouldn't happen.

I've seen this chart before and looked into it. The bottom line is, it didn't happen.

 

The chart (and several others like it that appear to have come from the same data) was created by writing a script that scraped the NYT live voting data.

The problem is, that data was incredibly high level, and only gave the number of votes counted and the proportion of votes (Dem or Rep) to the nearest 0.1% (which I'm sure you can appreciate is nowhere near enough decimal places when you're dealing with millions of votes)

 

The mistake the person who created these charts has made, which as a stats guy I'm sure you'll appreciate is pretty fundamental, is they've used the CUMULATIVE percentage of votes (i.e the percentage of all votes cast up to that point) to split the latest batch of votes.

 

For example, let's say we are halfway through counting and the current split of all the votes up to now was 49% Rep 51% Dem (I've made up those numbers as an example). The latest batch of votes come in, let's say it's a batch of 100 votes. I'm sure you'll agree that 100 votes is not enough to change that overall ratio of 49% vs 51% when we're talking about. But in the data this person has used, he' has assumed that cumulative percentage is the percentage split of that 100 votes that has come in. We have no way of knowing what the split of that 100 votes is, only that it didn't change the overall split. It could be 100 votes for biden, 100 for trump, 50/50, whatever. However this person collecting this data has assumed those votes split exactly 49/51.

This is a fundamental error and is enough to discount any analysis based off it. The person collecting it has incorrectly reverse engineered the data to get to vote numbers which are totally false. 

This coupled with the fact the percentages are rounded to far too few decimal places when dealing with large numbers means that the numbers being used are, largely, complete nonsense.

And it also means when you do get large swings in data, like the infamous 170k batch for which 120k were Biden votes, incorrectly backing the data out on rounded percentages gives you negative numbers as above.

 

TL;DR, the data is wrong

tenor.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

If you make it through this without laughing I owe you a beer after lockdown. 

 

Cry because she's allowed to walk home after storming the US Government building.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

He took it at face value where it appears to show votes being deducted from Trump.

Which is admittedly pretty alarming. But misrepresents the reality.

I wasn't trying to shit on Villianusa. Just trying to show him why the chart he has presented is incorrect

I know ... it was sort of a rhetorical question that I hope Villianusa would have a go at answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

 

 

 

So you believe an anti fascist group stopped the electoral college count that was about to confirm the loss of a fascist wannabe dictator ?

Cool .

 

I imagine Trump is counting on there being more fools like this to be honest . Won't be long before he's retweeting "It was Antifa" bollocks.

I don't know, but the truth will hopefully be out sooner than later. 

Try and be an adult and stop with the insults because someone disagrees with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I agree that shouldn't happen.

I've seen this chart before and looked into it. The bottom line is, it didn't happen.

 

The chart (and several others like it that appear to have come from the same data) was created by writing a script that scraped the NYT live voting data.

The problem is, that data was incredibly high level, and only gave the number of votes counted and the proportion of votes (Dem or Rep) to the nearest 0.1% (which I'm sure you can appreciate is nowhere near enough decimal places when you're dealing with millions of votes)

 

The mistake the person who created these charts has made, which as a stats guy I'm sure you'll appreciate is pretty fundamental, is they've used the CUMULATIVE percentage of votes (i.e the percentage of all votes cast up to that point) to split the latest batch of votes.

 

For example, let's say we are halfway through counting and the current split of all the votes up to now was 49% Rep 51% Dem (I've made up those numbers as an example). The latest batch of votes come in, let's say it's a batch of 100 votes. I'm sure you'll agree that 100 votes is not enough to change that overall ratio of 49% vs 51% when we're talking about millions and millions of votes. But in the data this person has used, he' has assumed that cumulative percentage is the percentage split of that 100 votes that has come in. We have no way of knowing what the split of that 100 votes is, only that it didn't change the overall split. It could be 100 votes for biden, 100 for trump, 50/50, whatever. However this person collecting this data has assumed those votes split exactly 49/51.

This is a fundamental error and is enough to discount any analysis based off it. The person collecting it has incorrectly reverse engineered the data to get to vote numbers which are totally false. 

This coupled with the fact the percentages are rounded to far too few decimal places when dealing with large numbers means that the numbers being used are, largely, complete nonsense.

And it also means when you do get large swings in data, like the infamous 170k batch for which 120k were Biden votes, incorrectly backing the data out on rounded percentages gives you negative numbers as above.

 

TL;DR, the data is wrong

If all of what you say is true, but I disagree with it. Why would Trump lose over 100,000 votes and the same amount go to Biden?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Friend of mine just sent me a picture of one of the guys at Capital Hill who looks a spitting image of me, even down to the red hat :crylaugh:

I don't wear glasses (although I should) but it is scary how much this moron looks like me.

Beskrivning saknas.

Edited by sne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â