HorsesAss.Org

Mark 6:35
By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late.

Discuss.

Russ Feingold hits Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) on student loans.

Conan and Sen. Franken: Humor in politics.

Obama to Congress: Louisiana may need more funding.

Thom: Tribal rights & the Dakota access pipeline.

What the polls do to us.

Clinton Makes History:

• Stephen: Is Hillary healthy enough to serve?
• Kimmel: Clinton prepares to debate Drumpf.
• Conan: Al Franken on Hillary:

• Clinton calls out Drumpf’s racism
• Stephen: Sen. Kaine remembers that call from Clinton.
• Kimmel: Clinton tries to read Drumpf quotes with a straight face.
• Conan: Proof that Hillary is healthy.
• Kimmel: Hillary on the State Dept. release of her emails.
• Stephen: Hillary’s emails…are they a thing?
• Kimmel: #picklegate part 1
• Kimmel: #picklegate part 2. The Alex Jones investigation
• Farron Cousins: Senate Republicans are secretly supporting Hillary Clinton

Farron Cousins: Alt Right—Just another name for mainstream Republican.

The Other Washington episode 6.5: Paid sick leave.

Thom: The secret list of those who have voted twice.

Colbert: Real Tim Kaine reacts to fake Tim Kaine.

Run The Jewels: “Nobody Speak”.

White House: West Wing Week.

The 2016 GOP- White Nationalist- Drumpf-Fest:

• Young Turks: “Undercover voters” are skewing polls against Drumpf.
• David Pakman: Drumpf’s epic flip-flop
• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News credits ACLU for Drumpf flip-flop
• Farron Cousins: Drumpf calls Hillary a bigot.
• Stephen: Drumpf’s Town Hall–The Softening
• Young Turks: Eric “dumber than Donald” Drumpf blames stagnant wages on refugees
• Rachel Maddow: Donald Drumpf loses public pushing fringe priorities
• Priorities USA: Watching
• David Pakman: Former IRS Chief says no reason Drumpf cannot release taxes.
• Young Turks: What happened to Drumpf financial and Drumpf mortgage?
• Jimmy Dore: Drumpf & other super rich white douchebags wish they were minorities
• PsychoSuperMom: The Very Model Of A Modern Alt Right Hate Filled Site:

• Drumpf: The music video
• The Moscowian Candidate
• Seth Meyers: A Closer Look at Drumpf’s flip-flop on immigration
• Young Turks: crowd boos Drumpf’s flip flop
• Stephen: Rents at Drumpf Tower have skyrocketed
• Sen. Al Franken with Conan: Most terrifying election of our lifetime.
• Jimmy Dore: 12-YO Drumpf campaign office head shares why he’s making America great again
• Rachel Maddow: Racist-right finds new prominence via Donald Drumpf.
• Young Turks: CNN panel laughs at Katrina Pierson’s Trump Defense
• Thom and Pap: The Drumpfster fire is out of control.
• James Corden: Drumpf’s Dr. lied about some of his credentials.
• Young Turks: How Drumpf funnels campaign donations into his pocket
• Kimmel: Drunk Donald Drumpf in Austin
• Drumpf’s health blowback.
• Drumpf’s violence
• Priorities USA: Pledge.
• Farron Cousins: Michele Bachmann (!!!) is advising Drumpf on foreign policy issues
• David Pakman: Unhinged Republican blames Obama for creating Donald Drumpf
• Michael Brooks: Triumph the Insult Comic Dog on trans bathroom commercials
• Young Turks: Donald Drumpf ruins Ann Coulter’s book launch party.
• Stephen: Google “Donald Drumpf Rudy Giuliani Drag Queen Motorboat”
• That was one extremely moving apology Mr. Drumpf
• Young Turks: The crazy Alex Jones that Drumpf loves
• Farron Cousins: Heartbroken Ann Coulter lashes out at Donald Drumpf.
• Jimmy Dore:Drumpf tweets shredded by TYT’s John Iadarola
• The Breitbart Candidate:

• Young Turks: Trump to black voters, “what the hell do you have to lose?”

Bassem Youssef: The ISIS Hunter.

David Pakman: The FAUX sex scandal explodes.

Young Turks: Gov. Paul LePage leaves homophobic meltdown voicemail.

America’s worst idea.

Pres. Obama celebrates 100 years of National Parks.

Thom: Voter suppression and the mathematical proof.

Young Turks: Andrea Tantaros, “Faux News a sex-fueled, Playboy mansion-like cult

Tim Kaine jams with Jon Batiste and Stay Human.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Clinton	Trump
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 347 electoral votes	Mean of 191 electoral votes

The previous analysis showed Sec. Hillary Clinton with nearly 100% probability of beating Donald Trump in an election held last week. Her average Electoral College total was 337 to Trump’s 201.

Since last week’s analysis, there have been 22 new polls released in 16 states. We have three new polls in North Carolina, two in Florida, a pair in Michigan, and two in Virginia. Note that I did not include a recent poll from South Carolina because it was commissioned by the state Democratic Party. I explain my inclusion and exclusion criteria for polls in the FAQ.

After 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins all 100,000 times. This time, Clinton received (on average) 347 to Trump’s 191 electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would have a very close to a 100% probability of beating Trump.

Clinton is now in an extremely strong position. Even if she wins only the “safe Clinton” and “strong Clinton” states (i.e. darkest shades of blue) and loses all of the states that “lean Clinton” or are “weak Clinton” (i.e. medium or light shade of blue), she wins the election with 294 electoral votes. That is, Clinton still wins the election without Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Ohio. I should add that nobody seriously expects Clinton to lose Oregon; the most recent poll we have in the state is from mid-June, and has Clinton leading Trump by a few points.

A few things have changed since last week that bumps up Clinton’s electoral vote total.

In Iowa and old Docking poll aged out and a new poll was released giving us three current polls. The newest has Clinton up by +2%, one has Trump up by 1.2% and the third is a dead tie. The net result is that Clinton won 57.2% of the simulated elections suggesting she is slightly favored, but statistically, Iowa is a tie.

In Missouri we lose two old polls, including one with Trump up by +9.9%. The three current polls have Trump up: +1%, +2% and +3%. As a result, Trump dropped from a 91% to a 84% chance of winning the state.

For the previous analysis we only had an old poll for New Mexico that had Clinton up by about 3%. But a new PPP poll in the state has Clinton up 40% to 31% (+9%). Consequently Clinton moves from a 76% probability of winning the state last week to a 99% this week.

North Carolina moves to a lighter shade of blue this week. Last week we had three current polls with Clinton up by +9% and +2% and Trump up by +4%. Three new polls are added this week that has Clinton up +2%, Trump up +10%, and a tie. The net result is that Clinton went from a 91% probability of winning the state last week to an 84% chance of taking it this week.

Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]

Back to the usual nonsense next week.

Something something Carl’s vacation.

Washington’s primary election results have been certified, and we are on the way to November. Please join us tonight for political talk and electoral chat at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally. All are welcomed—no extreme vetting involved.

We meet tonight and every Tuesday at the Roanoke Park Place Tavern, 2409 10th Ave E, Seattle. You’ll find us in the small room at the back of the tavern. We start at 8:00pm.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings this week. Tonight, the Tri-Cities chapter meets. On Wednesday, the Burien and the North Spokane chapters meet. The Kent and Woodinville chapters meet on Thursday.

There are 185 chapters of Living Liberally, including twenty in Washington state, three in Oregon and one in Idaho. Find, or go out and start, a chapter near you.

There is a new Pennsylvania poll released today that has Trump leading Clinton 41.9% to 36.5% from a random sample of 1000 registered voters. The poll is released by a Canadian consulting firm that specializes in something like project management in the petroleum industry.

The poll is almost certainly fake, and without further information, it will not be included in my database of polls. It isn’t just the surprising results (Clinton has been leading Trump handily in PA for some time now) that leads me to exclude it. Rather it is what the “pollster” writes that flags this as a fake. The alternative is that the press release has been written by a rank amateur who has completely botched the description of the poll and, perhaps, the results.

At this point, I invite you to join me in some wonky fisking of the poll press release. Let’s start with the methods:

The survey is designed to use a scientific method to provide results which are as much as possible representative of the actual voter population with minimal distortion of results.

It uses “a scientific method”? Really! Don’t all polls? Real pollsters don’t say shit like this. Rather, they might mention using standard polling methods or some such thing. Most simply describe their methods without fanfare.

Adults 18 years of age and older registered voters residing in the state of Pennsylvania were contacted on landline numbers and interviewed in English using robo-call interviewers.

Nevermind that PA isn’t a state (it is a commonwealth). But “using robo-call interviewers” is rather informal for a description of methods. Inclusion of the word “interviewers” suggests sloppiness or ignorance of what a robo-poll is. “Using robo-call interviews”, perhaps. “Interviewers,” no.

Landline telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of registered voters from throughout the state of Pennsylvania from reputable suppliers of random phone numbers to opinion research companies.

First, this is a very badly written sentence–a theme throughout the press release. But…”suppliers” in the plural? They needed more than one supplier of phone numbers for Registered voters? Who were they, and how did they get voter’s phone numbers to match up with the voter registration?

Samples generated are as close to truly random as possible.

No they weren’t. This sounds entirely like a non-statistician trying to sound technical. Nobody with real training in polling methods or statistics would make such an idiotic statement. First, nobody (particularly a real pollster) truly believes that samples in political polls are all that close to random, and (2) one could always find better (costlier) methods to draw samples that are closer to random.

The phone numbers were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population.

Again, this seems suspect and amateurish in wording and from the lack of specifics. No regional breakdown was given in the results.

The questions asked during the Robo-call survey was kept extremely simple to minimize any distortion to the response due to: Framing of the questions, communication issues, distractions and the consequent impact on the interpretation and response.

Poorly written, bad grammar, and partially nonsensical. At this point, let me say that this could all be a function of a bad press release writer.

The questions asked were as follows: “Who will you vote for in November Presidential Elections?- Press 1 for Donald Trump. Press 2 for Hillary Clinton. Press 3 for Neither.”

That would be only one question, not “questions”. If this is truly the only question asked, then the poll results are fake, given that age and income questions must have been asked as well.

the sample was balanced based on the 2014 Pennsylvania Census

Only problem…there was no “2014 Pennsylvania Census”. There are population estimates for 2014 in PA, but these are based on the 2010 census. A knowledgeable writer might say, “based on 2014 population estimates for PA” or some such thing, but would never say “based on the 2014 PA census.”

This survey excluded the various counteracting variable factors to provide a more representative ground reality without complicating it with the said factors. These variable factors, inter alia consist of: In-State / Out-of-State migration, transients, people without landlines or cell phones, racial demographic representation at the polling booth. Another counter-acting set of variables is turnout: among young people, people who have never voted before, increased/decreased turnouts compared to previous elections. These factors are in a state of continual flux at this dynamic stage of the election process. It is not feasible to accurately include the impact of these factors without introducing unintended distortion in the outcome.

This is largely gobbledygook.

Note that both principals listed for this organization have Indian surnames, and this press release does have some elements of Indian English. I’ve spent a lot of time in S. Asia and working with Indian scientists and statisticians over the years, so I can say with some certainty that the errors, sloppiness, ambiguity and amateurishness of this press release are not a function of it being written in Indian English.

Results are statistically significant within ±7.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The “19 times out of 20” is an okay way of saying “at the 5% level”, but there is a problem with the margin of error (MOE) of 7.1%. The sample size is 1000, which makes 7.1% absurd for the MOE.

Pollsters find the 95% MOE as ±1.96*sqrt[p*(1-p)/N], where N is the sample size, p is the proportion for one candidate and (1 – p) for the other. Usually, pollsters find the maximum MOE by assuming there really is a tie (i.e. 0.5 for each candidate), so our equation becomes ±1.96*sqrt(0.25/N). Substituting in 1000 for N the MOE should be about ±3%, not ±7.1%.

Earlier in the press release was the statement:

According to CEPEX analysis, the error percentage is high due to the results obtained from just one day of polling. Subsequent polling would be required to reduce the error percentage.

This statement either betrays this as fraud or, perhaps, the press release writer is totally ignorant of statistical methods, sampling error and the like. The fact that it was only one day of polling is completely irrelevant. The MOE is simply based on the sample size (and the assumptions of a binomial process). It doesn’t matter whether 1000 people were asked in one hour or one week. On the other hand, this all might be an awkward way of saying that they could only squeeze in 1000 phone calls in a single day.

That’s it for methods, which can be criticized on other grounds as well (no cell phone subsample, no randomization of candidate order, registered instead of likely voters, etc.).

The results have some “funny” things in them as well.

They have 10 age categories. It is certainly possible that their polling robot would ask for direct age entry. So…okay, but what happened to 18-29 year-olds? It looks like the youngest age category starts at 30.

So much for their “random sample” of voters in Pennsylvania.

For income, they have an astonishing 15 categories. Political pollsters never ask for household income directly, only in rough categories. People are highly reluctant to give their income over the phone in a political survey. But pollsters do get reasonable compliance when asking about income in a small number of broad categories.

The fact is, no real election poll would ever ask about income in 15 categories. There are several reasons, particularly for robo-polls:

• It simply takes too long to read through all these categories
• There are only 10 digits + 2 symbols on the touchtone pad, so 12 categories would be the maximum. One key would be needed for a “read them again” response so that means 9 (or maybe 11 using symbols) categories could be the maximum realistic number of categories
• Too many categories reduce compliance because the income categories become too small. That is, as you increase the number of categories, it feels more and more like asking income directly.

The number of income categories alone suggests very strongly to me that this is a fake poll.

I took a quick look at the Waybackmachine for the URL, and it only has an archive from 2am today. I suppose it could be a brand new URL they moved to today, but given all the other issues”, it sure looks like a fake poll.

A couple of months ago, I was thinking about the incentives and disincentives for a campaign to set up a series of fake polls. If you believe that inertia can make a difference, then there are some good incentives for doing this.

This poll may be our first such specimen–if so, it is very badly done. In the future, they may be much more difficult to uncover.

Still on vacation.

Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Luke 12:49
I came to cast fire upon the earth. How I wish that it was already ablaze!

Discuss.

Young Turks: Feds to phase out for-profit prisons.

Nightly Show: Super depressing deep dive into America’s opioid epidemic.

Jonathan Mann: Good use of polling, bad use of polling.

John Oliver: American Petroleum Institute.

July was the hottest month ever recorded.

Bassem Youssef: America First!

What is a digital passport?

The 2016 Breitbart-Brand White Nationalist Drumpf Show:

• Maddow: Drumpf receives first intelligence briefing.
• Farron Cousins: Drumpf wants his goons to intimidate minorities at the polls.
• Sam Seder: Triumph conducts hilarious focus group with Drumpf supporters.
• Drumpf Spox: “Obama invaded Afghanistan.”
• Joe Biden does an incredible, epic take-down of Mr. Drumpf:

• Maddow on Biden’s epic Drumpf takedown.
• Young Turks: #LoserDonald, “I don’t trust US intelligence”
• Trevor Noah: Drumpf’s flawed take on law and order.
• David Pakman: Drumpf’s medical letter is fake.
• Young Turks: Drumpf continues to illegally solicit foreigners for campaign contributions
• Lawrence O’Donnell with Gary Kasperov on Donald Drumpf’s call for “peaceful regime change.”
• Daily Show: Donald Drumpf’s anti-terrorism policies
• Jimmy Dore: Trump lawyer barks ‘Says who?’ at CNN host, hilarity ensues.
• Young Turks: #LoserDonald says goodbye to Paul Manafort.
• Sam Seder: The back story behind the Manafort’s resignation.
• Young Turks: “Says who?” Drumpf surrogate makes fool of himself on TV.
• Nude Drumpf statues pop up in US cities
• Daily Show put Drumpf supports through some EXTREME VETTING.
• Sam Seder: Anchor can’t stop Katrina “bullet necklace lady” Pierson from talking nonsense.
• Drumpf ROAST!
• David Pakman: EPIC fail as Drumpf lawyer confused that Drumpf is losing in ALL POLLS.
• PsychoSuperMom: Trumpenfreude!:

• Maddow: “Rally effect” convinces Donald Drumpf to deny polls.
• Sam Seder: Drumpf’s chief strategist is a real problem for him.
• Young Turks: Drumpf reboots his campaign AGAIN…this time with a white nationalist.
• Michael Brooks: Trump lawyer busts out old “Says who?” defense when told Drumpf is losing
• Maddow: The Manchurian Manafortian Candidate.
• Have you noticed there are two Donald Drumpfs?
• Slate: Drumpf’s “dangerous” new campaign head
• Sam Seder: Drumpf says Hillary is a bigot taking Black voters for granted
• David Pakman: Breitbart News CEO takes over as Donald Trump’s campaign manager.
• Where did Drumpf get his money?
• New Drumpf advertisement
• Young Turks: Naked #LoserDonald statues popping up in multiple cities
• Maddow: Racist red flags follow Donald Drumpf’s Breitbart hire, Steve Bannon.
• The many flip-flops of Donald Drumpf.
• Trevor Noah: The hardest job in the world—Donald Drumpf’s campaign surrogates
• The Racism Olympics:

• Lawrence O’Donnell: Donald Drumpf goes after George Bush and Dick Cheney for Iraq war.
• That Darn Drumpf: Episode 1, Not a Racist.
• Solemn responsibility.
• Young Turks: How #LoserDonald buried the Taj Mahal

Mental Floss: 46 odd and surprising stats and figures.

Hillary ROAST!

Minute Physics: The Twins Paradox primer.

Sam Seder: Bill-O-the-Clueless-Clown suggests #BlackLivesMatter is like KKK.

Robots for President?

Bad Lip Reading The Democratic National Convention.

Eric Schwartz: Don’t Vote:

Liberal Viewer: Larry Wilmore suggests Drumpf & Hillary are different kinds of liars

Jon sends off Larry in style.

Susie Sampson gets Weiner-ed.

Bassem Youssef: How can Muslims act “normal”.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

I’m still on vacation. This thread is still abbreviated.

It’s my first day of vacation, so nobody rob my apartment.

Clinton	Trump
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 337 electoral votes	Mean of 201 electoral votes

The Monte Carlo analysis of state head-to-head polls last week showed Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Republican Donald Trump in electoral votes by an average of 325 to 213, and with Clinton having a 99.7% probability of winning an election held then.

Since then, 24 new polls have been released in 13 states. Some states have multiple polls, for example, Florida with five and New Hampshire with three.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins 99,999 times and Trump wins the single Electoral College outcome that was a tie. Clinton received (on average) 337 to Trump’s 201 electoral votes. The results suggest that, in an election held now, Clinton would have a near 100.0% probability of winning.

Here is how the race has evolved in some key states.

Florida gains five new polls that solidly favor Clinton (+3%, +6%, +1%, +5%, and +9%). The new polls move Florida from a 67.1% probability of a Clinton victory last week to a 98.2% probability now.

Georgia flips from light blue to light red. Of the seven current polls, Clinton leads in only two of polls. Last week Clinton only had a 68.6% probability of taking the state. That has now shrunk to a 24.2% probability.

Maine gets one new poll that shows Clinton up by +10% and with 100% probability of taking the state. Unfortunately, the new poll does not provide congressional district results. The last poll that did that was from June, and showed Trump with a slight lead in one district. It would be great to get some polling in ME CDs.

New Hampshire gets three new polls (and one aging out). The oldest poll shows Trump with a +9% margin, but Clinton has the lead in the last four polls by +15%, +13%, +10%, and +9%. Clinton goes from a 38% probability of taking the state last week to a 99.9% probability this week.

One new North Carolina poll pushes Clinton from a 50.1% probability of taking the state to a 90.8% probability. She leads in the most recent two of the three current polls.

Ohio loses one poll that aged out, and has shrunk Clinton’s chances from 81% to 65%. Clinton leads in three polls (+4%, +4%, +2%) and Trump leads in one (+3%). The result is a near toss-up

South Carolina finally gets a current poll, but Trump is only up by +2% in the new poll. This small lead gives him a 72.6% probability of winning the state today.

In Virginia, two new polls come in and one old one ages out. Clinton leads in the most recent three polls by double digits with Trump leading (+4%) in the oldest poll. Clinton would almost certainly win Virginia in an election now.

Washington state gets a current poll that gives Clinton a +19% lead. Needless to say, she approaches a 100% probability of winning the state right now.

Last week, the most recent Wisconsin poll was from Marquette University taken in mid-July. Clinton was up +4.1%. Marquette just released their August poll and Clinton now has a +14% lead over Trump. The results suggest she would take Wisconsin with a 99.7% probability today.

The distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] shows all possible Electoral College outcomes:
[Read more…]

Please join us tonight for an evening of politics over a drink at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally. All are welcomed—no ideological purity tests involved.

We meet tonight and every Tuesday at the Roanoke Park Place Tavern, 2409 10th Ave E, Seattle. You’ll find us in the small room at the back of the tavern. We start at 8:00pm.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings this week. Tonight, the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, WA chapters also meet. The Lakewood chapter meets on Wednesday. And on Thursday, the Tacoma, Bremerton, and Spokane chapters meet.

There are 185 chapters of Living Liberally, including twenty in Washington state, three in Oregon and one in Idaho. Find, or go out and start, a chapter near you.

Seattle, we need to talk about standing. Like, how are we all so bad at it. I don’t understand, for example, how we’ve figured out the stand on the right thing for the escalators in the U-District and Capitol Hill stations but no where else. I assume most of the people getting off at one of those two stations use another station. It’s not just people traveling between the two of them (and I guess the surface level ones). There must be people who go from University Street to the University District, leave standing on the right and then come back, and get out of the bus tunnel standing on the left. This is not OK.

But that’s an old complaint on this blog. Another thing I’m seeing now is people standing in front of stuff. I was at the Seattle Art Museum and their Graphic Masters exhibit. A lot of the pieces were quite small, so you had to get your face into it and take your time. I have no problem with this, and in fact, Seattle folks should do more of it at SAM and other museums. But it did mean that toward the beginning there was a bit of a line. Anyway, in front of me two people start talking about what phone they use. Have that conversation if you want, but don’t do it standing in front of a piece of art you can’t see without getting close up, for God’s sake. Take two steps back.

And, I’ve seen this sort of thing a few times recently. I think part of is is the Seattle chill, that we don’t call them on it. I also think is generally good. I’d rather wait a minute than have a conversation with a stranger. All I want is for everyone to not get in people’s way when you’re standing.

A future Open Thread will probably deal with how bad we are as a city at walking.