JUburton wrote:Clinton only needs PA out of those states. Wait for the other PA/WI polls out today and dry your sheets

Monkeyboy wrote:

JUburton wrote:Clinton only needs PA out of those states. Wait for the other PA/WI polls out today and dry your sheets

but I want the senate almost as much as the presidency. It's the only way she'll ever get to appoint a justice.

JUburton wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

JUburton wrote:Clinton only needs PA out of those states. Wait for the other PA/WI polls out today and dry your sheets

but I want the senate almost as much as the presidency. It's the only way she'll ever get to appoint a justice.

McGinty has been consistently up on Toomey, Bayh is somehow holding on, Hassan seems safe...and who the hell knows what's going to happen in Nevada. The only guarantee is with a super majority and that ain't happening so I don't know how much 50+ matters for the supreme court anyway. I'd still really like dems to get there, of course.

TenuredVulture wrote:

JUburton wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

JUburton wrote:Clinton only needs PA out of those states. Wait for the other PA/WI polls out today and dry your sheets

but I want the senate almost as much as the presidency. It's the only way she'll ever get to appoint a justice.

McGinty has been consistently up on Toomey, Bayh is somehow holding on, Hassan seems safe...and who the hell knows what's going to happen in Nevada. The only guarantee is with a super majority and that ain't happening so I don't know how much 50+ matters for the supreme court anyway. I'd still really like dems to get there, of course.

Either way, I think the filibuster is over when it comes to judicial nominations.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

JUburton wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

JUburton wrote:Clinton only needs PA out of those states. Wait for the other PA/WI polls out today and dry your sheets

but I want the senate almost as much as the presidency. It's the only way she'll ever get to appoint a justice.

McGinty has been consistently up on Toomey, Bayh is somehow holding on, Hassan seems safe...and who the hell knows what's going to happen in Nevada. The only guarantee is with a super majority and that ain't happening so I don't know how much 50+ matters for the supreme court anyway. I'd still really like dems to get there, of course.

Either way, I think the filibuster is over when it comes to judicial nominations.

Oh yeah. A Dem majority eliminates the filibuster, no doubt.

Youseff wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Youseff wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Youseff wrote:the weirdest thing about the Trump candidacy is that his supporters seem to like him. there's delusional Clinton supporters that will rationalize away her faults (seen it on BSG in fact) but not to the fevered, impassioned degree that seemingly millions of Trump supporters are willing to go. talking out my human butt like usual, but it seems like so many more people are voting for Hillary as like a sandbag in a hurricane type candidate, whereas the a huge chunk of the Trump supporters are voting for him bc they like him.

This isn't really true though. A higher proportion of people are voting for Clinton than against trump as opposed to vice versa.

874 voters doesn't make my dick hard. I could be wrong but that minuscule survey doesn't match the reality I've observed.

So a poll doesn't conform to your personal observations? Well I'll be.

I don't think a poll of 874 of the 200,000,000+ million people that will vote is convincing one way or the other.

TenuredVulture wrote:The inferential power of a sample has nothing to do with the population size. That is, a sample of 1000 of a population of 100,000 is just as good as a sample of 1000 out of a population of 10 million.

Think of it like a blood test--they don't take more blood from a fat guy.

Kahneman acknowledges that researchers (social and behavioral scientists in his case) have too much faith in what they learn from a few observations:

[*]They select too small a sample size which leaves their results subject to a potentially large sampling error.
[*]Experts don’t pay enough attention to calculating the required sample size and instead use rules of thumb.

A well known example of this is the supposed ‘Mozart effect’. A study suggested that playing classical music to babies and young children might make them smarter. The findings spawned a whole cottage industry of books, CD and videos.

The study by psychologist Frances Rauscher was based upon observations of just 36 college students. In just one test students who had listened to Mozart “seemed” to show a significant improvement in their performance in an IQ test. This was picked up by the media and various organizations involved in promoting music. However, in 2007 a review of relevant studies by the Ministry of Education and Research in Germany concluded that the phenomenon was “nonexistent”.

What is to blame for the bias?

Kahneman puts much of the blame for people being subject to the bias of small numbers on System 1. This is because system 1:

[*]Eliminates doubt by suppressing ambiguity and automatically constructs coherent stories that help us to explain our observations.
[*]It embellishes scraps of information to produce a much richer image than the facts often justify.
[*]Is prone to jumping conclusions and will construct a vision of reality that is too coherent and believable.
[*]Humans are pattern seekers and look for meaning in their observations.
[*]People do not expect to observe regular patterns from a random process and when they do see a potential correlation they are far too quick to reject the assumption that the process is entirely random.

Overall Kahneman believes people are prone to exaggerating the consistency and meaning of what they see. A tendency for causal thinking also leads people to sometimes see a relationship when there isn’t one.

TenuredVulture wrote:The inferential power of a sample has nothing to do with the population size. That is, a sample of 1000 of a population of 100,000 is just as good as a sample of 1000 out of a population of 10 million.

Youseff wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The inferential power of a sample has nothing to do with the population size. That is, a sample of 1000 of a population of 100,000 is just as good as a sample of 1000 out of a population of 10 million.

Think of it like a blood test--they don't take more blood from a fat guy.

I think Daniel Kahneman would say that logic is a representativeness heuristic.

Kahneman acknowledges that researchers (social and behavioral scientists in his case) have too much faith in what they learn from a few observations:

[*]They select too small a sample size which leaves their results subject to a potentially large sampling error.
[*]Experts don’t pay enough attention to calculating the required sample size and instead use rules of thumb.

A well known example of this is the supposed ‘Mozart effect’. A study suggested that playing classical music to babies and young children might make them smarter. The findings spawned a whole cottage industry of books, CD and videos.

The study by psychologist Frances Rauscher was based upon observations of just 36 college students. In just one test students who had listened to Mozart “seemed” to show a significant improvement in their performance in an IQ test. This was picked up by the media and various organizations involved in promoting music. However, in 2007 a review of relevant studies by the Ministry of Education and Research in Germany concluded that the phenomenon was “nonexistent”.

What is to blame for the bias?

Kahneman puts much of the blame for people being subject to the bias of small numbers on System 1. This is because system 1:

[*]Eliminates doubt by suppressing ambiguity and automatically constructs coherent stories that help us to explain our observations.
[*]It embellishes scraps of information to produce a much richer image than the facts often justify.
[*]Is prone to jumping conclusions and will construct a vision of reality that is too coherent and believable.
[*]Humans are pattern seekers and look for meaning in their observations.
[*]People do not expect to observe regular patterns from a random process and when they do see a potential correlation they are far too quick to reject the assumption that the process is entirely random.

Overall Kahneman believes people are prone to exaggerating the consistency and meaning of what they see. A tendency for causal thinking also leads people to sometimes see a relationship when there isn’t one.