dagblog - Comments for "Nebraska votes (again)"

This should be expanded into

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 13 May 2016 05:04:41 +0000

This should be expanded into a post of its own. We come to hard conclusions on data that is fuzzy or misinterpreted or incomplete or biased, on both sides or three sides of every policy discussion. Fracking, minimum wage, health care, gun control, etc. Columnists and journalists are lazy, regurgitating and distorting info, what's on tv news is superficial and hit-and-miss to accuracy. We can track buying habits down to half a percent, but we often can't predict a vote to within 10%. Where are our sensors/data inputs on this issue or another, and what does the raw data say? Except raw data doesnt conclude, it's a mess. There's a concept now of "Dark Data", vast piles of unanalyzed data we can't afford or don't have the time or expectation of value to wade through....

A poll is just data. To

ocean-kat — Thu, 12 May 2016 19:21:40 +0000

In reply to At least caucuses are a known

A poll is just data. To extract meaning from that data requires thoughtful analysis. Statisticians like Nate Silver don't just toss them all together. He tries to analyze the quality, throwing some out, weighing others up or down. He's very upfront about how he does this and upfront when the data is insufficient or of low quality. He's usually pretty successful in his predictions and rarely makes claims when there is insufficient data. And that's the key. He's famous because his analysis usually produces accurate predictions.

Polls are not very different than data we get from other sources on any controversial subject. We have to ask the same questions and do the same thoughtful analysis. Were did the info come from, was it a respected source, how was the data collected, does the data match the conclusions the writer extrapolated from it?

Where do people get their information on climate change? Don't we have to ask all those questions? From Exxon or from NASA? GMO's is an even better example as there is skewed science from both Monsanto and far left liberal sources.

The internet is a blessing and a curse, as all new tech seems to be. There is so much information out there at our finger tips. Information that 30 years ago I had to spend hours searching in the library for or days waiting for inter library loans, or just could not find at all now is there with a quick search and a click of a button. Now sorting though the reams of good and bad info to find value is the hard part. It used to be hard and time consuming to get information. Now the thoughtful analysis part is the hardest and most time consuming. And unfortunately, that's the part that so many people never wanted to do in the first place.

At least caucuses are a known

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 12 May 2016 08:16:24 +0000

In reply to Thanks for catching this.

At least caucuses are a known quantity.

Polls differ every one, for a variety of reasons, sane and insane, yet we toss them all together, usually unweighted or evaluated, to get an average that's supposed to inform us or be accurate or something. Here's a run through of this week's swing states poll in only 6 months. Nate Silver is apparently not f'ing impressed. But hey, let's shake up the convention because ~~Horton heard a Who~~ Bernie won a poll.

But, but, but, but....Hillary

CVille Dem — Wed, 11 May 2016 22:34:53 +0000

In reply to Thanks for catching this.

But, but, but, but....Hillary wears army shoes!

Thanks for catching this.

ocean-kat — Wed, 11 May 2016 21:26:34 +0000

In reply to Nebraska votes (again)

Thanks for catching this. Somehow I missed it. You've defended caucuses in the past and while your reasoning is sound imo those reasons are not nearly sufficient to justify a system with such divergent results. Caucuses are just too undemocratic for me to support for any reason.