[BadKosh]

Sure....

2016 presidential debate snap polls show Trump beating Hillary Clinton by a landslide | Daily Mail Online

[besson3c]

From the Nate Silver article:

Post-debate surveys like CNN’s aren’t always popular with poll mavens, in part because the universe of debate-watchers may not match the electorate overall. The voters in CNN’s poll were Democratic-leaning by a net of 15 percentage points, for instance, a considerably wider advantage than Democrats are likely to enjoy on Election Day.

But the CNN survey also historically correlates fairly well with movement in the post-election polls. Below, you’ll find a comparison between the perceived winner of the CNN/Gallup poll in debates since 1984, and how much the horse-race polls changed afterward. In 2012, for instance, Romney gained a net of 4.4 percentage points on Obama, although he eventually lost most of those gains. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, saw the polls swing by 4.1 points in his favor after the town hall debate of 1992.1

I think it is clear that these online reactionary polls are all pretty dubious without some sort of historical model to use them with, which is what Silver at least attempts to provide.

[OAW]

Seems to me if the Trump camp is so confident that they won we wouldn't be seeing things like this ...

Trump Adviser Giuliani: 'I Wouldn't Participate in Another Debate' - NBC News

OAW

[besson3c]

If I were Donald Trump I wouldn't participate in another debate unless I was promised that a journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker

Lame. If journalists are not supposed to fact check, who should be? It seems like most/all of the fact checkers agree that a number of things Trump said were factually incorrect, and far more so than Hillary.

It's not like it is hard to debunk a number of Trump's lies either. He says here pretty clearly that he "guesses" he supports the Iraq war:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs

I'd much rather hear him say that he was wrong rather than pretending to be infallible.

[Chongo]

Ah, The Howard Stern show. Will we be citing Opie and Anthony next?
Was he Sen. Trump and voting on a use of force resolution?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ah, The Howard Stern show. Will we citing Opie and Anthony next?
Was he Sen. Trump and voting on a use of force resolution?

I'm not suggesting that Clinton's decision was less egregious, I'm just saying don't ****ing lie about something you said.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not suggesting that Clinton's decision was less egregious, I'm just saying don't ****ing lie about something you said.

Aaaaaand then Neal Cavuto found this: (thx to BadKosh)
2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition | Fox News

[The Final Dakar]

There was very little to love watching that debate, but Trump's stunned, "Where did you find this? Where did you find this?" during the Miss Universe drop is one of the most delicious things that have happened all year. Completely. Blindsided.

[The Final Dakar]

My favorite hot takes from last night:

Brit Hume: Hillary Clinton Looked 'Composed, Smug, Not Necessarily Attractive.'

Chuck Todd: "Hillary Clinton was at times, you could argue, over-prepared.”

Mel Robbins: "Clinton was too restrained, too smart -- and as much as I hate to say it -- she was too presidential."

David Frum: “Who told Hillary Clinton to keep smiling like she’s at her granddaughter’s birthday party?”

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Aaaaaand then Neal Cavuto found this: (thx to BadKosh)
2003 clip backs up Trump on Iraq War opposition | Fox News

So then say that you were kind of for it, and then you changed your mind. He claimed that he was never for it, despite his words clearly saying otherwise.

This whole idea that human beings changing their mind is a sign of weakness or something undesirable is beyond dumb.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not how universities work: their prestige derives from the quality (and quantity) of the scientific output. The scientific output is the return of investment. There are potentially other, secondary goals which range from target numbers for number of women or internationals hired, but these take a back seat to scientific output. In countries where universities aren't free, the scientific reputation is what attracts paying students (especially from abroad). Grant money is useful only in so far that it allows universities to hire more researchers who teach and increase the scientific output.

Is there not a tension between quality and quantity?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there not a tension between quality and quantity?

Yes, and there are a lot of other problems, too (e. g. the use of very, very imperfect ways to measure performance, the forceful focus on breakthrough research vs. follow-up studies, and the increase in senseless bureaucracy). But none of overarching trends are specific to the US, and none of it in my mind has any connection to, say, research on global climate change in particular.

[subego]

I didn't claim the problem was unique to the US, or global warming research.

The argument was "there is no global conspiracy by academics to push climate change as a means of receiving grants". I agree, but the implication is the lack of said conspiracy means the data is good. Is the argument the "global conspiracy" allegation is so frustrating because it mislabels the vector for bad science, or because it's impugning good science?

If the problem is the global conspiracy claim impugns good science, this is an excluded middle fallacy (or perhaps "false dilemma" would be the more familiar term). Global conspiracy or good science are not the only options.

If there was no implication intended, the "global conspiracy" comment on its own is a straw man. Global conspiracy is not the only vector for bad science. There are numerous ways (some listed above) in which the system incentivizes bad science without requiring a global conspiracy.

So, there are multiple vectors for bad science. One of these vectors is how grant money increases output, which is one of the returns on investment the institutions expect and incentivize. As noted above, this problem (along with others) is not limited to the US and hence global in scope.

Considering that, I feel teeing-off on global conspiracy claims is somewhat analogous to being frustrated over the allegation Colonel Mustard was killed with the candlestick because everybody should know it was the wrench.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the argument the "global conspiracy" allegation is so frustrating because it mislabels the vector for bad science, or because it's impugning good science?

The allegation is frustrating, because global climate change deniers level an accusation of impropriety and scientific fraud not just against a few individuals but against a whole field of science. If that were true, the only way that would work is via a transnational conspiracy — which is as likely as the illuminati being in control of the world. Even though I am from a completely different field, I share the frustration that climate scientists must feel. The largest share of the allegations do not even reach the level of scientifically valid criticisms (e. g. because people confuse weather and climate or do not understand statistics). Other criticisms raise questions which have been studied scientifically a long time ago (e. g. the question of “urban hot spots”).

So most critics do not engage the discussion at the scientific level, nor do most have the required scientific literacy to engage such a discussion in the first place. That makes those detractors resistant to scientific arguments as well.

Originally Posted by subego 

If there was no implication intended, the "global conspiracy" comment on its own is a straw man. Global conspiracy is not the only vector for bad science. There are numerous ways (some listed above) in which the system incentivizes bad science without requiring a global conspiracy.

There are certainly ways in which sometimes the wrong incentives are used. But I wouldn't even go as far as saying that the system incentivizes “bad” science in the way that you have in mind. The most highly prized achievement in science is a breakthrough (whatever that is in your example). If you can turn the orthodoxy on its head, this is where you can get maximum recognition. If you can find particles that move faster than light, this would be huge. Or if you could disprove the current consensus on global climate change, this would be what gets you maximum attention. (I would say this focus on breakthroughs actually is one of the misaligned incentives, it often makes it more difficult for in-depth follow-up studies which are less creative, although I don't think this applies to climate science.)

As you can see, none of the incentives align for maintaining a scientifically disprovable consensus, quite the opposite. Because of the significance of climate change to all walks of life, there have been plenty of in-depth studies on all of the minutiae, including some studies by self-professed climate skeptics (there was one very large project at UC Berkeley headed by a — former — climate change skeptic).


Note that all of these arguments easily apply to other “scientific” controversies such as the purported link between vaccines and autism (which has been debunked a long time ago).

[The Final Dakar]

Jill Stein is so terrible that Evan McMullin is now beating her in some polls. Though I guess that's not more meaningful than when Harambe was beating her.

[P]

FiveThirtyEight currently has FL as the lightest possible shade of blue, which would be disastrous for Trump. It was actually 50.1-49.9 earlier today, but is currently 50.6-49.4.

[The Final Dakar]

Speaking of volatility, Hillarys chances are the highest they've been in two weeks.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

FiveThirtyEight currently has FL as the lightest possible shade of blue, which would be disastrous for Trump. It was actually 50.1-49.9 earlier today, but is currently 50.6-49.4.

That's been revised to 62/38 Clinton.

[besson3c]

55% chance of Clinton victory in FL in the Now-cast, 69% nationally.

Obviously Clinton is benefiting from a post-debate bump.

[subego]

The conventional wisdom is it's too soon to tell. It needs to hold for a few days to be official.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The conventional wisdom is it's too soon to tell. It needs to hold for a few days to be official.

Well, it's horse race polls. I'm not claiming it will hold, but it does reflect the perception of the debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, it's horse race polls. I'm not claiming it will hold, but it does reflect the perception of the debate.

I feel the polls are too noisy to say that for sure, but I'll go along with probable.

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

The conventional wisdom is it's too soon to tell. It needs to hold for a few days to be official.

She has at the very least stopped the slide, so the debate has had some impact.

I do think it strange that Trump is now apparently ahead in NV and pulling close in CO while losing states in the South. I would have placed NV as bluer than FL, and moving similarly.

[subego]

Last time she stopped a slide it vaporized a few days later, for no discernible reason I was able to find.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

She has at the very least stopped the slide, so the debate has had some impact.

I do think it strange that Trump is now apparently ahead in NV and pulling close in CO while losing states in the South. I would have placed NV as bluer than FL, and moving similarly.

The Nate Silver Now-cast now shows her ahead in NV, but yeah, you have a good point.

[subego]

With the Florida thing, on a hunch I checked if Machado had some Cuban connection.

Her father's Cuban.

[The Final Dakar]

Listening to a podcast, it seems the 538 model is pessimistic on Clinton because it sees this election as having high uncertainty. It sounds like this mostly relies on undecideds. The volatility does seem to be baked in – Enten described the algorithm as responding to new data 'quickly'.

Meanwhile, at PEC Sam Wang is taking the opposite tack. He points to this year as one of the least volatile and uncertain in decades, pointing to very little variance in state polls/electoral count. I don't recall him mentioning undecideds, but I suspect they would only factor in if they suddenly shifted state polls.

It's an interesting conundrum because I see where both are coming from. Enough undecideds exist as to be able to swing polls, yet polarization exists to such a degree that we know how most states would vote. I'd also say they are two extremes in the polling algorithm outfits – everyone else seems to fall inbetween them.

[The Final Dakar]

Now that I'm no longer pissing my pants, I've been thinking. I don't see how, rationally, Hillary doesn't win in an electoral blowout (For purposes of this post, let's say better than 2008 results). I realize that her unfavorables are a huge drag, but looking at some non-scientific markers, I feel like it should. My thought process is as follows:

First, Trump is unpopular within his own party. I can think of several different groups who are much less likely to vote for him than your generic R: Moderate Republicans, Evangelicals, Mormons, Old school (read establishment) Republicans, Log Cabin Republicans, and Minorities. Depending if you think his economic plan objectively is likely to wreck the economy Big Business Conservatives apply here as well. Granted, if they abstain rather than vote for Hillary, it tempers the 'blowout' potential.

Second, his perceived racism, xenophobia, sexism, and anti-intellectualism, could turn off Independents, Libertarians, and Moderates.

Third, he is being rejected by/has rejected the system at large. Party officials shun him, political donations indicate less enthuisiams or worse management, his state campaign infrastructure is non-existent, and even the media can't swallow him. I won't say it would have a large effect, but I think so many conservative newspapers not only refusing to endorse Trump, but actually endorsing Hillary is indicative of the beliefs of probably a significant chunk of Republican-friendly voters.

It's the last part that I'm heavily basing this opinion on. If Trump could narrowly lose (or even win) with no real campaign and no real funding, that would signal that how we assume campaigns are won is woefully misguided and needs to be reconsidered. And while the power of money in politics can be overestimated, his campaign is so extremely barebones on ads and staff that it'd be incredibly noteworthy.

My 2¢.

[OAW]

^^^ Everything you've said is on point. However, your analysis is rooted in the electorate being RATIONAL. The Trump constituency is anything but. I would bet my next three paychecks that the average Trump supporter would forego SEX for the next eight years if they could keep Hillary Clinton from being POTUS. It's just that serious for them.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^^ and I guarantee every regressive would give up sex for the next 8 years to keep Trump OUT of office. You think the two camps are so different in their fanaticism?

[P]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Listening to a podcast, it seems the 538 model is pessimistic on Clinton because it sees this election as having high uncertainty. It sounds like this mostly relies on undecideds. The volatility does seem to be baked in – Enten described the algorithm as responding to new data 'quickly'.

Which just happens to drive frequent pageviews - but I'm sure that that is just a lucky coincidence.

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

^^^ and I guarantee every regressive would give up sex for the next 8 years to keep Trump OUT of office. You think the two camps are so different in their fanaticism?

I actually think that the left is more anxious to keep Trump out than the right is to keep Clinton out. The right wants to keep Clinton out because they reject Bill Clinton and his presidency, and because they dislike Clinton as a person. Mostly they think that the country is going in the wrong direction, and want to halt it. The left - and a good number of Republicans - want to keep Trump out because they're scared that he might trigger World War III or a global economic meltdown (Those Republicans also want to keep Trump out because they fear what a Trump win would do to the GOP, but that is a separate question).

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not how universities work: their prestige derives from the quality (and quantity) of the scientific output. The scientific output is the return of investment. There are potentially other, secondary goals which range from target numbers for number of women or internationals hired, but these take a back seat to scientific output. In countries where universities aren't free, the scientific reputation is what attracts paying students (especially from abroad). Grant money is useful only in so far that it allows universities to hire more researchers who teach and increase the scientific output.

Quality and quantity are traits which are at odds with each other.

The return on investment for these institutions is money. Money from grants, money from patents, money from those people whose names you see on campus buildings.

With something like grants, there is an illusion the best science gets the best grants. This isn't true. The best grants go to those who are best at getting grants. It's a different skill than the science it supports.

Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson the most famous astronomer in the world because he's the best astronomer in the world, or because he excels in a wholly unrelated skill?

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

Which just happens to drive frequent pageviews - but I'm sure that that is just a lucky coincidence.

But... but... it's science. Science is above that, right?

[The Final Dakar]

I forgot to add, Reason 4. Trumps comments have possibly surged Hispanic registration and energized them to turn out.

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^ Everything you've said is on point. However, your analysis is rooted in the electorate being RATIONAL. The Trump constituency is anything but. I would bet my next three paychecks that the average Trump supporter would forego SEX for the next eight years if they could keep Hillary Clinton from being POTUS. It's just that serious for them.

OAW

There are limits though. his recklessness and idiocy undermines his 'politics.' There are exceptions but I think the average voter is not ok with a President so thin skinned he might drop the nukes.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

Which just happens to drive frequent pageviews - but I'm sure that that is just a lucky coincidence.

Except he has the now cast for just that reason right? I mean your logic is solid, but I present the alternative that he's gun shy from how hard he got burned by Trump in the primaries ignoring that his mistake was ignoring the data.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Last time she stopped a slide it vaporized a few days later, for no discernible reason I was able to find.

I have no idea why it became a 'dead heat' in the lead up to the debate, either. I think debate surges are more like convention bounces, but that may have only been the case for Romney.

[The Final Dakar]

Saw this on Twitter:


Kind of fascinating.

[The Final Dakar]

I was browsing electoral maps at work and my yearning for an electoral blowout is statically very unlikely. As it is, Hillary would have a hard time matching Obama's 2008 numbers because a. Iowa and b. Indiana. Iowa has been a reliably blue state that is also incredibly white, so I demographics play a part here. Indiana is a traditionally red state that made an exception in 2008. Even if Hillary won all the same states as Obama in 2008, she'd be 10 electoral votes shy of his mark because of changes in allocation. Nevada would cover the loss of Indiana, and Georgia the loss of both (minus one vote). Both plus Iowa would be enough to get her over Obama's mark.

According to PEC, 345 ec is around the top end of her likely outcomes. So my more realistic goal is for Hillary to exceed Obama's 2012 map, but I wouldn't consider that anywhere near the electoral blowout Trump deserves (and a repudiation of what he stands for).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quality and quantity are traits which are at odds with each other.

The return on investment for these institutions is money. Money from grants, money from patents, money from those people whose names you see on campus buildings.

The largest part of the income for universities does not come from grants. To give you an idea, have a look at my alma mater (I'm excluding the hospital here, because by its very nature it generates a lot of its own income for services rendered). If you factor out the university hospital for the moment, 7 % of its budget is due to selfgenerated revenues (which I assume includes money from patents and some such). About 31 % stems from external funding, although there is a lot of variability in that depending on the faculty (in engineering, probably the faculty with the highest percentage of external funding, it is 68 %). The budget amounts to 20,300 € per student. The costs per student again depend on the faculty.

Most faculties at TUM are consistently among the Top 5 if not Top 3 within Germany, so they are much more successful than average when it comes to acquiring external funding. Other mid-level universities have a much harder time here, so they rely more on state income.

Roughly speaking, this situation translates to other countries: top universities are able to vacuum up a much larger share of the total budget in external funds while mid-level universities depend much more on income associated to students (e. g. tuition fees). For the majority of universities this creates incentives to grow the number of students. That, in itself, brings other problems, e. g. that you are incentivized to be more lax in exams (if you fail too many students, the budget suffers).

Originally Posted by subego 

With something like grants, there is an illusion the best science gets the best grants. This isn't true. The best grants go to those who are best at getting grants. It's a different skill than the science it supports.

While you are right that writing good grant proposals is a different skill compared to doing science, you are wildly underestimating the competitiveness when it comes to grant. With grant schemes with decent chances, only 25-30 % of the grants are accepted. With more prestigious grant schemes and fellowships you have much, much smaller chances, it is not unusual that they are in the single-digit percentage range. For jobs it is even worse. (For internationally renowned universities, several hundred people apply for a single tenure track position (at UofT it was 550+ people for a single position). Even lesser known universities easily have 100+ people applying.)

So writing a good proposal only gives you an edge after you survived the preselection, and then you are already in the company of very accomplished scientists. It's not as you make it out to be, that people with mediocre scientific skills but very good grant writing abilities are able to vacuum up grants. The scientific landscape is exceedingly competitive. I think a good point of comparison is pro sports, only very few make it.

Originally Posted by subego 

Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson the most famous astronomer in the world because he's the best astronomer in the world, or because he excels in a wholly unrelated skill?

His fame in the populous is not due to his scientific achievements, but his achievements when it comes to outreach and the popularization of science. That's not to ding his scientific contributions (I'm not an astronomer anyway, so I can't really judge), and one way or another the only way he could have gotten his position is through hard work.

[P]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was browsing electoral maps at work and my yearning for an electoral blowout is statically very unlikely. As it is, Hillary would have a hard time matching Obama's 2008 numbers because a. Iowa and b. Indiana. Iowa has been a reliably blue state that is also incredibly white, so I demographics play a part here. Indiana is a traditionally red state that made an exception in 2008. Even if Hillary won all the same states as Obama in 2008, she'd be 10 electoral votes shy of his mark because of changes in allocation. Nevada would cover the loss of Indiana, and Georgia the loss of both (minus one vote). Both plus Iowa would be enough to get her over Obama's mark.

According to PEC, 345 ec is around the top end of her likely outcomes. So my more realistic goal is for Hillary to exceed Obama's 2012 map, but I wouldn't consider that anywhere near the electoral blowout Trump deserves (and a repudiation of what he stands for).

Obama won NV in 2008 and in 2012, so I don't understand that part. I agree that it won't be a blowout, though - even the 2012 map will be a stretch, given that OH looks stubbornly red (redder than NC even).

[The Final Dakar]

Sorry I meant Arizona, not Nevada.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sorry I meant Arizona, not Nevada.

I accept your apology.

[subego]

I only got through half of it before I felt I'd had enough.

My commentary...

Alec overused the pursed lips, but did good vocal stylings.

I like Kate, but she's too youthful. I'd move away from SNL talent (which will be a theme) and offer these three casting options.

Meryl Streep
Helen Mirren
Zach Galifianakis

Lastly, I'd go "meta", and instead of having a fake Lester Holt, I'd get a real Matt Lauer.

[P]

^^^
Wrong thread?

---

538 just posted another interesting EC map which ought to give everyone nightmares:

Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico | FiveThirtyEight

Basically, Clinton wins her "safe" states plus PA, VA, CO and NH, but loses NM to Johnson. Trump takes the rest - possibly excluding AK which might go to Johnson, it doesn't really matter. This means that neither candidate gets to 270, and it goes to the House delegations to decide.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

^^^
Wrong thread?

Well, it's the best choice without starting a "The Case Against Saturday Night Live" thread.

[subego]

Speaking of putting things where they don't belong, for our "Flashback Sunday", here's a gif of Bill Clinton being grilled about Monica Lewinsky, and hearing the word "cigar" for the first time.




I know I shouldn't revel in the pain of others, but sometimes I can't help myself.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Speaking of putting things where they don't belong, for our "Flashback Sunday", here's a gif of Bill Clinton being grilled about Monica Lewinsky, and hearing the word "cigar" for the first time.




I know I shouldn't revel in the pain of others, but sometimes I can't help myself.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

538 just posted another interesting EC map which ought to give everyone nightmares:

Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico | FiveThirtyEight

Basically, Clinton wins her "safe" states plus PA, VA, CO and NH, but loses NM to Johnson. Trump takes the rest - possibly excluding AK which might go to Johnson, it doesn't really matter. This means that neither candidate gets to 270, and it goes to the House delegations to decide.

I'm not taking his dumb clickbait. If I want heartburn I can look at the chances of a senate democratic majority.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Speaking of putting things where they don't belong, for our "Flashback Sunday", here's a gif of Bill Clinton being grilled about Monica Lewinsky, and hearing the word "cigar" for the first time.

That's certainly a better pokerface than Trump's "Where did you find this? Where did you find this?" when Hillary dropped the Machado bomb on him.