patrick.net

"Yes, remember that time when all the polls said Trump was gonna get crushed, and all the 538 number crunchers at world reknowed NYT and elsewhere said so, and Hillary won the Election?"

You mean the time when the polls said Hillary would win the popular vote by 2% and she actually won by 2.1%? Holy crap--that really showed what FAKE NEWS is, didn't it??

fyi--the 538 number crunchers had it analyzed pretty damn well. You should actually read their pre-election articles sometime.

"Politically, the statue removal issue is a loser for Democrats"

Because the polls say so, right? And you always believe polls when they say what you want, right?

joeyjojojunior says

You mean the time when the polls said Hillary would win the popular vote by 2% and she actually won by 2.1%? Holy crap--that really showed what FAKE NEWS is, didn't it??

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight is supposed to specialize in data-based journalism, but the site reported on Tuesday morning that Clinton had a 71.4 percent chance of winning the election. The site was wrong about the outcome in major battleground states including Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and Trump obviously won the election in addition to the individual states that were supposed to vote Clinton. Silver wasn’t the only pollster to botch the 2016 election.

Here's some more:

And even more at:
http://www.thewrap.com/every-poll-that-got-election-wrong-donald-trump/

Many try to mislead by posting updated predictions that came in AFTER the first results and exit polling numbers had arrived from several states, as evidence they weren't "That Off". But what counts in their last prediction prior to any results or even exit polls reported.

We don't choose Presidents by the Popular Vote, but by Electoral Count. Both the NYT, 538, and others like Sabato were going by their expected Electoral College count, NOT by the simple national vote.

Here was the NYT Electoral Map Prediction the day before the election, where they gave the clear advantage to Hillary:

Again, like with the StormFront new registrant decline, we see narrative defenders misleading about numbers. Decline in new registrants is a decline in new registrants. Estimating 70-85% chances of victory is an overwhelming statement that Hillary would win.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Here's some more:

It's quite obvious that news agencies on both side deliberately lie about polls in order to influence polls. Humans, being the dumb asses they are, are more likely to agree with a position that is popular. People are instinctively band wagon jumpers.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Decline in new registrants is a decline in new registrants

Well, you really can't argue with what you really can't argue with. I wonder if there is a word for that.

"Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight is supposed to specialize in data-based journalism, but the site reported on Tuesday morning that Clinton had a 71.4 percent chance of winning the election. The site was wrong about the outcome in major battleground states including Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and Trump obviously won the election in addition to the individual states that were supposed to vote Clinton. Silver wasn’t the only pollster to botch the 2016 election."

He didn't botch anything. His model was spot on. Late deciders swung for Trump in several key swing states. Silver wasn't wrong.

Now--many of the MSM models were crap and didn't understand conditional probabilities. 538 had been banging the drum for weeks that the race was a LOT closer than the MSM was letting on.

And again--if you don't believe polls, then why are you starting a thread based entirely on POLL RESULTS

YesYNot says

Slavery was an evil.

I agree with almost everything in this comment, but it's irrelevant to what I've been arguing.

Although I disagree with the following.

YesYNot says

You can argue that a tribal soldier just fighting with his neighbors wasn't evil, but you cannot argue at this point that the war was not fought to preserve an evil.

Actually I can argue that by far well over 90% of confederate soldiers did not believe they were fighting to preserve an evil. Probably many were ambivalent about it, while having many questions in their minds about what freeing 4 million slaves would mean to the south and also whether the yankees had the right to tell them they must be freed right this minute ! Things are often not so simple. And If you want to read about it, you might find there was building antagonism building between the south and the north on many issues for many decades over issues other than slavery. The fact that abolitionists were generalizing in congress that southerners were all dirtbags for having their 4 million slaves was a big factor. Slavery was by far the biggest issue, but the name calling, tarrifs and ugly politics had led to a defensive kind of hate, and mistrust of the north, that was sort of a nastier version of the hate that you hear today from some right wingers regarding us politically correct democrats, with our self righteous virtue signaling.

Yes, I believe that virtually all confederates did not believe that they were fighting to preserve an evil. They had a bigger economy than the north, and even though they knew the writing was on the wall for slavery, they didn't know how to roll of of it (with 4 million slaves) and they feared the federal government might make them do it at any moment (even though Lincoln assured them that if you have slaves now you can keep your slaves) . Unfortunately, they didn't trust him and hate of Yankees prevailed. Who knows how much better slavery might have been unwound if there hadn't been the war. It would have taken a decade or two longer, but it surely would have led to a much better outcome.

zzyzzx says

Since we will soon be taking down any statue that offends anybody, may as well get that out of the way.

Would you be OK with a statue of Osama bin Laden? If not, hypocrisy.

marcus says

I agree with almost everything in this comment, but it's irrelevant to what I've been arguing.

It's very much relevant. None of the ISIS soldiers believe they are fighting for evil either.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Here was the NYT Electoral Map Prediction the day before the election, where they gave the clear advantage to Hillary:

Now, now. The New York Times just called the election for Trump last week.

Dan8267 says

None of the ISIS soldiers believe they are fighting for evil either.

Interesting point, but you can break down the equivalence pretty easily if you think about it. I have some sympathy for uneducated and poor southerners who were fighting because the north invaded and their friends and family were fighting to defend. I have no sympathy for someone like Lee, who inherited 100 slaves, was rich, had a choice, had people in his family side with the north, and chose to fight for the south. I also have no sympathy for the military and political leaders who were making decisions about whether and how to fight.

marcus says

Actually I can argue that by far well over 90% of confederate soldiers did not believe they were fighting to preserve an evil. Probably many were ambivalent about it, while having many questions in their minds about what freeing 4 million slaves would mean to the south and also whether the yankees had the right to tell them they must be freed right this minute ! Things are often not so simple.

What? You have questioned the sacred Things That All Enlightened People Believe!

This makes you a super-evil racist, and you must be burned at the stake, like this witch:

www.youtube.com/embed/zrzMhU_4m-g

rando says

What? You have questioned the sacred Things That All Enlightened People Believe!

Actually I'm advocating the sensible position of the majority, which is that if one has some historical respect for or honors confederate soldiers or their leaders it is not in any way honoring or glorifying the practice of slavery.

There is a problem, that some people think it is. Those people need to understand that this is subjective and that a majority disagree with them, It's fair to let local people decide.

Unfortunately the arguments of those that say it glorifies slavery are adding to division over something that in my opinion should not be an issue. It feels like just more of the theater we are being provided to keep us divided from dealing with important issues.