Hillary Clinton is Done

[BenBurch]

She's like your mother because ... reasons ?

And she so technically st00pid, she figured she could just hide all her email and no one would ever notice ?? That's your theory ?

See the preceding post - there'e a whole thread about her email server where you can impress us all with you cyber security qualifications, and evidence her server or email was compromised.

I know it was compromised because I know that any small server system at that point in time could be compromised easily. I've seen it. I've been burned by it. I cannot tell you some of the things I learned, but even if you use the SCAP scanner religiously, that only gets the APTs we know about already. Where I worked, which was a critical infrastructure operation, where we had commendations from the NSA hanging on the walls, was compromised and we never knew about it for several years. And this is with elaborate defenses and constant vigilance.

And because of the raw value of compromising the American Secretary of State, she would not have escaped the Chinese crew.

 

[Loss Leader]

Nate Silver is about as useful as a sack of rocks with regard to predicting such matters, one or two past successes notwithstanding. His credibility will be destroyed beyond redemption after this year.

You're talking about the only person to perfectly call the 2012 election? I think Silver has a problem with the Republican field, because Trump is an unknowable quantity. But the Democratic primaries should be much easier to call.

 

[Dog Town]

You're talking about the only person to perfectly call the 2012 election?

Do you not see the difference between 2012, and 2016?

Pro tip:
Feel the Bern!

 

[kellyb]

I think Silver has a problem with the Republican field, because Trump is an unknowable quantity.

So is Sanders. What is he good at if not measuring the factors which are known unknowns? (Yes, I see the Rumsfeld reference there.)

 

[The_Animus]

You're talking about the only person to perfectly call the 2012 election? I think Silver has a problem with the Republican field, because Trump is an unknowable quantity. But the Democratic primaries should be much easier to call.

Please apply this same logic to your financial decisions and let me know how it works out for you.

 

[kellyb]

fivethirtyeight has gotten this entire election wrong. Absolutely none of his predictions are holding true.

 

[BenBurch]

So is Sanders. What is he good at if not measuring the factors which are known unknowns? (Yes, I see the Rumsfeld reference there.)

Oddsmakers never handle new factors well. Nature of the beast. You need some actuarial experience before you can get good at such things.

 

[Foolmewunz]

fivethirtyeight has gotten this entire election wrong. Absolutely none of his predictions are holding true.

There's been no election. He hasn't gotten anything wrong, yet. I think you don't actually understand what Silver does.

 

[kellyb]

There's been no election. He hasn't gotten anything wrong, yet. I think you don't actually understand what Silver does.

Perhaps I don't, but he's wildly veered away from his initial predictions. At this point, he's apparently measuring if we're an actual democracy or not (via delegate and superdelegate measures), and siding on the "not" side, ever so slightly (which is wildly divergent from his initial predictions.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

fivethirtyeight has gotten this entire election wrong. Absolutely none of his predictions are holding true.

How do you know that before any votes are cast?

 

[Trakar]

she never used "security" as an excuse, further, no one who ever saw the "can you imagine" video where she is talking about using email would ever believe that she did this for any reason other than a foolhardy attempt to shield her communications from oversight and FOIA.

I don't think FOIA or Government oversight were the issue as much as the VRWC that she sees in every shadow. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of people who were, are and will be agin a Clinton, if for no other reason than that they are a Clinton. And there are some groups who conspire to never let any Clinton hold a public office again. Hillary's bigger problem, however, is the non-conspiratorial masses who just don't like, or trust, her.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps I don't, but he's wildly veered away from his initial predictions. At this point, he's apparently measuring if we're an actual democracy or not (via delegate and superdelegate measures), and siding on the "not" side, ever so slightly (which is wildly divergent from his initial predictions.)

Do you have a link to this revelation? Or are you simply going by the single last poll in New Hampshire?

Pretty sure 538 has a polls and a polls-plus assessment.

 

[kellyb]

How do you know that before any votes are cast?

Remember Trump's impending implosion?

 

[BenBurch]

Remember Trump's impending implosion?

Or the prediction that Sanders "had peaked?"

This is the class of things oddsmakers suck at. New things.

 

[Trakar]

Pretty sure 538 has a polls and a polls-plus assessment.

2016 Election 6:30 AM Jan 20, 2016
Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-bernie-sanders-surge-real/

...natesilver: Maybe this is all coming out as more skeptical about Bernie than I’m intending it to be. The case for Bernie is that (i) he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which (ii) could produce huge momentum and very favorable press coverage, and (iii) he has enough money and a good enough ground game to run a long campaign, and (iv) well then, who knows, maybe this time really is different?...

Time will tell...

Seems like he agrees with you BenBurch, oddsmakers/statisticians are good with identifying patterns and trends but these are only predictive ceteris paribus.

 

[tyr_13]

In most cases, yes, they were obviously worse than alternatives. China is the only arguable exception, though I think they have been emboldened by our failures elsewhere.
SNIP

As I said, these all have thread related, (and you can go be wrong there too), but to contend that we should all agree with your 'obvious' view is simply silly. You know people disagree greatly on these issues. The only thing 'obvious' is that there isn't agreement.

And again, thinking that the alternatives backed by the GOP front runners would have been better is much more important that anything else, including if there were possible better choices. Those possible better choices are not the GOP choices. (Nor Bernie's choices as far as primaries go.)

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

You're talking about the only person to perfectly call the 2012 election? I think Silver has a problem with the Republican field, because Trump is an unknowable quantity. But the Democratic primaries should be much easier to call.

Fair enough, yeah. He's been a disaster with regard to the Republican field.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Fair enough, yeah. He's been a disaster with regard to the Republican field.

Again, since none of the primaries have taken place and since his track record in the previous general election and nominating process was excellent, you're complaining about something that doesn't exist. He has never "predicted" a winner of either party in any state. He reports on his findings by rubbing polls and their known weighting/bias (individually) up against actual voting patterns, by district, by state.

When he reports that someone has a 72% likelihood, it is understood to read "at this particular point in time". Like the polls, his numbers change as more data becomes available. You can say that he's failed when his projections the night before the caucus or primary turn out to be wrong. He's never been in the business of saying who's doing better in the current polls.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

2016 Election 6:30 AM Jan 20, 2016
Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-bernie-sanders-surge-real/


Time will tell...

Seems like he agrees with you BenBurch, oddsmakers/statisticians are good with identifying patterns and trends but these are only predictive ceteris paribus.

Well you certainly cherry picked that quote.

The whole discussion by Nate Silver leans the other way with a rare comment there's room for unknowns.

 

[Trakar]

2016 Election 6:30 AM Jan 20, 2016
Is The Bernie Sanders Surge Real?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-bernie-sanders-surge-real/

...natesilver: Maybe this is all coming out as more skeptical about Bernie than I’m intending it to be. The case for Bernie is that (i) he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which (ii) could produce huge momentum and very favorable press coverage, and (iii) he has enough money and a good enough ground game to run a long campaign, and (iv) well then, who knows, maybe this time really is different?...

Time will tell...

Seems like he agrees with you BenBurch, oddsmakers/statisticians are good with identifying patterns and trends but these are only predictive ceteris paribus.

Well you certainly cherry picked that quote.

The whole discussion by Nate Silver leans the other way with a rare comment there's room for unknowns.

He's the one saying what many of us have been saying for months now. I still think he's still missing big segments of the picture, but that could just be my own biases and misperceptions.