I had to chuckle over the following comment from a news article. While it tries to shine a light on how polls can be rigged, it fails to point out one important reason polls may show Hillary ahead. Can you guess that reason? (see spoiler).
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302571-are-the-polls-skewed-against-trump
Quote
Donald Trump is ripping pollsters and the media, arguing the surveys are biased against him because many include too many Democrats in their sampling surveys.
[spoiler]Polls could be reflecting that Trump has weak support. Reflecting! it's what polls are supposed to do. [/spoiler]
Political Rule#3 - If you are complaining about the polls, you are losing way bad.
I know this article is tangential but I didn't want to start a separate topic. North Carolina as a history of gerrymandering and other partisan games. I live in Guilford county.
This Is What Actual Voter Suppression Looks Like, And It’s Appalling
In one county, a reduction in polling places has helped cut early voting by 85 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-suppression-2016_us_581028c2e4b02b1d9e63bcd2
Donald Trump regularly tells his supporters that the election has been rigged against him, and on Monday he accused Hillary Clinton’s campaign of utilizing a “voter suppression technique†that involved manipulating polls. (Politifact rated his claim “pants on fire†false.)
But with early voting now underway in several states, the real-world effects of actual (and very consequential) voter suppression have begun to bubble up.
Exhibit A is North Carolina, where in recent months reporters discovered that state Republican leaders had sent emails directing GOP appointees on local elections boards to “make party line changes†to limit early voting.
In one message, titled “CRITICAL and CONFIDENTIAL,†a Republican district chairman urged election officials to offer only one early voting site for the minimum hours allowed by law, so as not to give Democrats an advantage.
Early in-person voting began in North Carolina on Oct. 20, and Professor Michael McDonald, an elections expert at the University of Florida, said the impact of reduced voting sites is already evident in early returns:
Not all local boards listened, but some did, and the effect is obvious. The volume of early voting is generally down in the counties that reduced the number of polling locations and is up where the number increased.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-10-24-1477270619-2419267-NC_polling_places.jpg)
Perhaps the most egregious county is Guilford, a county of 517,600 people, of which 57.9 percent is White, and gave Obama 58 percent of the vote in 2012. The county opened 16 in-person early voting locations in 2012, but has only their central election office open in 2016. The number of in-person voters on the first Thursday and Friday was 21,560 in 2012, but was only 3,305 in 2016, a decrease of 18,255 or 85 percent.
Mecklenburg, where the state’s largest city Charlotte is located and a county Obama won with 61 percent of the vote, decreased their number of polling locations from 22 to 10. The effect was not as pronounced as Guilford. The number of in-person voters on the first Thursday and Friday was 29,068 in 2012, and was 26,660 in 2016, a decrease of 2,426 or 8 percent.
Many North Carolina counties will expand their in-person early voting polling locations the week before the election. Guilford will have 25 polling locations open at later points in the early voting period and Mecklenburg will have 22 (particularly the last week). In the past, the volume of early voting has increased as the election nears, so these actions to reduce turnout may not be entirely effective.
It seems like in politics whenever one side points the finger at someone else, it's usually about something the finger pointer is guilty of.
Trump simultaneously says the polls are phony and that he's winning in the polls. So does he expect his supporters to trust the polls or not trust the polls?
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 26, 2016, 05:35:50 PM
Trump simultaneously says the polls are phony and that he's winning in the polls. So does he expect his supporters to trust the polls or not trust the polls?
Even the final pole, the vote ... is rigged. Trillions of dollars are at stake ... the voters never stand a chance. Enjoy your Fantasy Island adventure, Mr Roark.
Trump is losing and Clinton is winning. Trump would say Martians are attacking tomorrow if he thought it would get a single vote anywhere or 10 seconds on the news shows..
FBI director Comey decided to get in the fray by tossing out yet more emails that may or may not mean didly shit, but yet he tossed fresh red meat to the republicans 11 days before the election. The guy should be taken out and shot along with Julian Assange and his merry band of election tamperers so apparently the entire right wing is just fine with a foreign entity calling the shots in favor of the Trumpster fire.
Comey shouldn't be shot, but he should be removed. Ineptness is always a firing offense.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 29, 2016, 03:05:40 AM
FBI director Comey decided to get in the fray by tossing out yet more emails that may or may not mean didly shit, but yet he tossed fresh red meat to the republicans 11 days before the election. The guy should be taken out and shot along with Julian Assange and his merry band of election tamperers so apparently the entire right wing is just fine with a foreign entity calling the shots in favor of the Trumpster fire.
Why not just make Obama "President for Life" like Poppa Doc or Baby Doc down in Haiti? End justifies the means.
I think you should calm down. Hillary was already guilty of leaving classified material on her personal email server (for which I would be arrested) ... so what does one more classified email amount to?
Here is what would take her down ... that she has emails on Mr Weiner's devices because she was doing the hoochy coochy with Mr Weiner, while his equally evil wife (Mrs Wiener) was watching (selfie picture by Mr Weiner while Hillary is in-frame).
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 03:21:05 AM
Comey shouldn't be shot, but he should be removed. Ineptness is always a firing offense.
You mean just like J Edgar Hoover? Or a Justice Department just like John Mitchell? Do you even remember Watergate? It was the Deputy Director who was Deep Throat. Thank G-d for interference ... someone has to stop the CIA etc ... otherwise Tricky Dick would still be President.
The email thing will plague Hillary for the next 8 years (I'm taking bets). Unless they can find evidence of actual wrongdoing, no, illegal activity, the questions will remain as part of the collective perception. The emails are just part of the cloud that follows her everywhere.
Hillary is Tricky P***y ... because like Nixon, if the Clintons do it, it is legal. So funny when the shoe is on the other foot ... if the Rs had been as corrupt as the Clintons (way beyond Nixonian) ... the Ds would have burned the White House down with Nixon in it. But then the Ds stole the 1960 election ... so they should dwell in Hell, right next to the Rs.
Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2016, 09:00:57 AM
The email thing will plague Hillary for the next 8 years (I'm taking bets). Unless they can find evidence of actual wrongdoing, no, illegal activity, the questions will remain as part of the collective perception. The emails are just part of the cloud that follows her everywhere.
What odds?
I doubt the email thing will be a matter of concern by January. The Repubs will have a lot more internal knife-fights going on by then. There is no substance to the emails.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 09:26:18 AM
I doubt the email thing will be a matter of concern by January. The Repubs will have a lot more internal knife-fights going on by then. There is no substance to the emails.
Substance to the suspicion is irrelevant. What makes the emails important are the unknowns. Why are they important right now? Oh, wait, I know. I'll bet Hillary sexted her titty pics to Weiner. And unless something of substance shows up by January, the emails and what we don't know about what they contain, will still be haunting Americans when the Rapture comes. This is an issue the Republicans don't want resolved. If the FBI actually leaks Hillary's titty pics to the press, everyone will find closure and emails will no longer serve a purpose.
Polls... been there done that.
I used to get called by gallup every 3-4 months and happily answered. Then I got the 'legal marijuanna in state poll', gave my pro opinion and was horrified when the results came out and politicians latched on the results, screaming about "look at how many people use [weed], we gotta make more laws!!"
Ignoring the results of the poll of 'we the people' I decided eff 'em. When Gallup called again I asked to be removed from their system. I told the lady why (she asked). She chuckled as I finished up my tirade about politicians with "bastards only use polls to change their slogans and lie to us some more. They will find out on election day what my opinion is".
I have answered the phone 3 times this election season for polls and told them to take me off their list. I am on Do Not Call, I remind them. A leaning towards hillary co-worker did the same this week.
There is a ton of distrust of all msm, including pollsters. Reading over some of the articles about polling, the struggle to get people to answer the questions seems to be a huge issue for all of them.
And that (imo) means one should take the polls with a teaspoon (rather than a grain) of salt.
Quote from: SGOS on October 29, 2016, 09:46:36 AM
Substance to the suspicion is irrelevant. What makes the emails important are the unknowns. Why are they important right now? Oh, wait, I know. I'll bet Hillary sexted her titty pics to Weiner. And unless something of substance shows up by January, the emails and what we don't know about what they contain, will still be haunting Americans when the Rapture comes. This is an issue the Republicans don't want resolved. If the FBI actually leaks Hillary's titty pics to the press, everyone will find closure and emails will no longer serve a purpose.
Ah yes, suspicion of scandal is sufficient as proof to The Donald. I keep forgetting that.
Quote from: chill98 on October 29, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
Polls... been there done that.
I used to get called by gallup every 3-4 months and happily answered. Then I got the 'legal marijuanna in state poll', gave my pro opinion and was horrified when the results came out and politicians latched on the results, screaming about "look at how many people use [weed], we gotta make more laws!!"
Ignoring the results of the poll of 'we the people' I decided eff 'em. When Gallup called again I asked to be removed from their system. I told the lady why (she asked). She chuckled as I finished up my tirade about politicians with "bastards only use polls to change their slogans and lie to us some more. They will find out on election day what my opinion is".
I have answered the phone 3 times this election season for polls and told them to take me off their list. I am on Do Not Call, I remind them. A leaning towards hillary co-worker did the same this week.
There is a ton of distrust of all msm, including pollsters. Reading over some of the articles about polling, the struggle to get people to answer the questions seems to be a huge issue for all of them.
And that (imo) means one should take the polls with a teaspoon (rather than a grain) of salt.
I use NoMoRoBo. My phone rings once when such people call and cuts them off, and then I delete the "missed call" messages once a day.
And I am so fucking OVER this campaign. It's already shot my last fucking nerve.
Quote from: Baruch on October 29, 2016, 09:04:21 AM
Hillary is Tricky P***y ... because like Nixon, if the Clintons do it, it is legal. So funny when the shoe is on the other foot ... if the Rs had been as corrupt as the Clintons (way beyond Nixonian) ... the Ds would have burned the White House down with Nixon in it. But then the Ds stole the 1960 election ... so they should dwell in Hell, right next to the Rs.
This election cycle has been a glaring example of 'fluid/subjective' personal morals.
Quote from: Mermaid on October 29, 2016, 10:19:44 AM
And I am so fucking OVER this campaign. It's already shot my last fucking nerve.
Have a pint ... and get your towel ready. The Vogons are only in your imagination.
When it comes down to crazy f*cking insane vs sneaky competent, I'll choose competent.
Quote from: chill98 on October 29, 2016, 10:24:02 AM
This election cycle has been a glaring example of 'fluid/subjective' personal morals.
If something is more fluid than it should be, I call it diarrhea. Some are back to policy-only position ... doesn't matter what the politicians do, as long as they legislate the way I want the Dark State tell them to (SCOTUS etc). Personal failures should be private, just like Jack Kennedy's escapades.
Quote from: Baruch on October 29, 2016, 10:27:08 AM
Have a pint ... and get your towel ready. The Vogons are only in your imagination.
I have no idea what this means.
Its a 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy' reference. It's British, towels are important, Vogons are building an interglactic highway through Earth and it is destroyed.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:40:42 AM
Its a 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy' reference.
Jeesh. And I read that, too.
I even played the text game in the 90s. I could never get a Babel Fish out of the vending machine.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
I even played the text game in the 90s. I could never get a Babel Fish out of the vending machine.
I did too ... so you were the one who was playing with me, you trans-dimensional mouse, you!
And the answer isn't 42 ... Deep Thought had a defective FPU (floating point unit ... see Intel circa mid-90s). Deep Thought only thought the answer was 42. Thus Earth 2 was still a waste of Magrathean effort.
Quote from article:
But, with today's latest ABC / Washington Post poll, the real "smoking gun" admission is revealed as the pollsters admit that the narrowing of their polling results are "not mainly about people shifting in their candidate preference" but about how their sample pool was constructed.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-29/abc-wapo-effectively-admit-they-tampered-their-polls-hillary-lead-shrinks-2-points
I take zerohedge with a grain of salt also. But at the bottom of the article is scribd content from the poll source.
While I won't claim which polls are reputable, my experience is that the national polls most often referred by the media usually predict the winners, perhaps not with perfect accuracy but close enough to be right.
Hey look! Voter fraud is real!!
(Trump supporter charged with voting twice)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.a3a97dda472a&wpisrc=nl_wemost&wpmm=1
QuoteRote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.
“The polls are rigged,†Rote told the radio station.
If she actually believed this, wouldn't it make more sense to not vote at all? I mean, why participate in a process that you don't believe is legitimate? Why cast a ballot that you strongly suspect is going to be altered?
Imo, the more plausible explanation is that this is just a partisan trying to ensure her candidate's success by hook or by crook.
This is a good demonstration of the mental capacity of Trump supporters.
Quote from: Atheon on October 30, 2016, 11:23:33 AM
Hey look! Voter fraud is real!!
(Trump supporter charged with voting twice)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.a3a97dda472a&wpisrc=nl_wemost&wpmm=1
So you have nothing to contribute towards the topic at hand, Whats going on with the polls?
But to humor you:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/
Going to the polling place twice has something to do with polls.
In any case, polls always tighten up as the Big Day comes. This is because the undecideds start to decide. Being undecided, they tend to be more dimwitted, and as such they tend to favor Republicans, as dimwitted people do.
Quote from: chill98 on October 30, 2016, 12:24:52 PM
So you have nothing to contribute towards the topic at hand, Whats going on with the polls?
But to humor you:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/
oh please.. The Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon and you're giving it even a shread of credibility? HAHAHAHA!
Don't tell me..You were married by ol Sun? I was a Moonie for about 2 weeks once upon a time..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on October 30, 2016, 02:03:44 PM
oh please.. The Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon and you're giving it even a shread of credibility? HAHAHAHA!
Don't tell me..You were married by ol Sun? I was a Moonie for about 2 weeks once upon a time..
Are you saying Moon is influencing colorado from the grave?
#1 in article:
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/23/potential-fraud-dead-voters/
Each point in the article is referenced to outside sources. So KmA.
So the girl committing voter fraud ... she can get up to 5 years in jail. That isn't where it is done, it is done in the voting machine software. That is why exit polls and voting results don't match in the 2012 election.
What you're describing is election fraud, not voter fraud. Republicans rely on the confusion of terms to push their voter suppression efforts.
There is always a discrepancy between exit polling and actual results. The fact that Obama won as expected by the aggregate polls shows that election fraud was unlikely. It sure threw Karl Rove and the Unskewing guy for a loop, but they were doing it wrong. Nate Silver was doing it right.
So what is Nate Silver saying now that we are only a week+ out of the election? Except for dead Democrats, there isn't that much voter fraud out there. But the potential for election fraud gets easier and easier.
Over the last couple weeks, Hillary's probability of winning has declined from around 85-86% to 79-80% as undecideds start to commit to a candidate. The race usually tightens in the last couple weeks. He also says that historically, "October surprises" have little effect on the outcome of an election. And in my un-expert opinion, with early voting locking people's votes in, they should have even less influence.
Though I don't know how reliable it is, I prefer looking at the results of Daily Kos's prediction model: 96% chance of a Hillary win.
About dead people voting, if someone mails in a ballot and then dies before election day, does that count as a dead person voting?
Dead people voting ... are you joking about the criminality of the D party in the 1960 election?
Daily Kos is the Pravda of the D party ... sheesh. But I will accept that Nate Silver may be unbiased.
Quote from: Atheon on October 30, 2016, 08:15:19 PMAbout dead people voting, if someone mails in a ballot and then dies before election day, does that count as a dead person voting?
Yes, those are counted. A card laid is a card played, so to speak. Though voting in the next election cycle is a bit of a no-no.
The basic idea of voter fraud is a dead issue. Even the BushII administration tried to prove it and couldn't. It is a false issue.
Not that it stops fanatics. They have the idea of it fixed in their minds and nothing will persuade them otherwise.
I will provide a Snopes Report that demolishes charges of voter fraud, and then list some of the more important conclusions. If you can't trust Snopes, then you are pretty much hopeless. THeir whole article is too long to post here, and too information-dense to summarize easily. But I'll try.
Claim: In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
Snopes Response: Barack Obama won the overall vote in the Philadelphia area by an 85% to 14% margin over Mitt Romney; Obama also received greater than 90% of the vote in more than half of Philadelphia's 66 wards, and 99% or more of the vote in seven of those wards. When the Inquirer went looking for Republican voters in some of those divisions, they couldn't find any.
Claim: In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations â€" and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).
Snopes Response: A precinct-by-precinct breakdown of the official voting results from Wood County, Ohio, for the 2012 election shows that Barack Obama received nowhere close to 100% of the votes cast in any of that county's 97 precincts. The highest percentage he achieved in any one precinct was 75.5%.
Claim: In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations â€" and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).
Snopes Response: A precinct-by-precinct breakdown of the official voting results from Wood County, Ohio, for the 2012 election shows that Barack Obama received nowhere close to 100% of the votes cast in any of that county's 97 precincts. The highest percentage he achieved in any one precinct was 75.5%.
There are more examples in the article, you can read them there. Snopes survives on a reputation for accuracy.
I consider this unassailable proof of deliberate deception (or utter stupidity) by partisan Republican fanatics.
So let's say Clinton/Kaine are elected. Kaine resigns and Obama is named Vice President. Clinton is automatically impeachment-proof! Or maybe even resigns in favor of Obama. LOL!
Just a joke.
Or IS it...? Bwa-ha-ha.
If you actually considered that, you are a crazy Republican and the CIA is going to come and take away your voter card and ALL your guns.
And there are some people out there who believe THAT...
Don't give them Putin/Medvedev ideas.
Quote from: Atheon on October 30, 2016, 08:15:19 PM
About dead people voting, if someone mails in a ballot and then dies before election day, does that count as a dead person voting?
If the postmark is earlier than the date of death, you're good to go. But if it's later, you have committed a felony. I'm not sure what the fine is.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 06:41:43 AM
If the postmark is earlier than the date of death, you're good to go. But if it's later, you have committed a felony. I'm not sure what the fine is.
Yes voting before you die counts. You voted akive, it counts. Like if you die on your way home from the voting place in a car crash, your vote still counts.
I read one study of the Billion or so votes in the US since 2000, 31 were found fraudulent. Of a BILLION.
The BushII administration tried to find voter fraud; they couldn't.
One group tried to find voter fraud, and found it. But they were all record-errors.
The sad fact for the crazies is that it just doesn't exist.
Their best argument is that there are lots of dead people still on voter lists. Their problem is that they just can't find any examples of dead people voting these days. We are past that. It is simply a false arguement. One that riles up the ignorant but has no basis in reality.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:46:19 AM
I even played the text game in the 90s. I could never get a Babel Fish out of the vending machine.
I could, but I needed the walkthrough. :D
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2016, 06:41:43 AM
If the postmark is earlier than the date of death, you're good to go. But if it's later, you have committed a felony. I'm not sure what the fine is.
They could just call it 'capital punishment from beyond'.
Quote from: trdsf on October 31, 2016, 02:07:16 PM
I could, but I needed the walkthrough. :D
I didn't buy the cheat-sheets or ask others. I just failed. I should have, to enjoy the rest of the game. But it seemed like it would be the same most problems. Text games were not my strong point. Logical questions are good for me, but dumb ones like "remove the light switch with your screwdriver and pull out the key" just made no sense. I made that one up, but it is a good example.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 01:51:34 AM
I didn't buy the cheat-sheets or ask others. I just failed. I should have, to enjoy the rest of the game. But it seemed like it would be the same most problems. Text games were not my strong point. Logical questions are good for me, but dumb ones like "remove the light switch with your screwdriver and pull out the key" just made no sense. I made that one up, but it is a good example.
I know the kinds of solutions you are referring to. Sometimes a walk through is the only possible way to get through parts of a game. My biggest concern is that a walk through can become habit forming. Sometimes there are enough clues around to figure out the solution, and I think a little frustration followed by the "Ahha" moment should be an enjoyable part of the game. On the other hand a couple of failed attempts can easily get me reaching for the walk through. This isn't an ideal way to play the game. Not because it's cheating, but because it will prevent you from having those enjoyable moments of discovery.
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 06:51:43 AM
I know the kinds of solutions you are referring to. Sometimes a walk through is the only possible way to get through parts of a game. My biggest concern is that a walk through can become habit forming. Sometimes there are enough clues around to figure out the solution, and I think a little frustration followed by the "Ahha" moment should be an enjoyable part of the game. On the other hand a couple of failed attempts can easily get me reaching for the walk through. This isn't an ideal way to play the game. Not because it's cheating, but because it will prevent you from having those enjoyable moments of discovery.
Yeah after the 100th attempt at failing to get a damn babel fish, you begin to look for a cheat book. I need some cheats just to get off Earth alive. When I couldn't get a babel fish on my own, I realized I just wasn't "getting it" and stopped.
I had done everything from asking, giving coins, beating the machine apart, speaking nicely, and everything else I could think of...
BTW, how DO you get the babel fish? Do you recall?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 08:00:27 AM
BTW, how DO you get the babel fish? Do you recall?
Sorry, I've never played that game.
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 08:16:04 AM
Sorry, I've never played that game.
Wow, from your previous responses, it seemed like you had. You meant similar games then?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 08:30:35 AM
Wow, from your previous responses, it seemed like you had. You meant similar games then?
Yep.
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 08:34:10 AM
Yep.
May I ask which? I tried a lot of games on my Commodore 64.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 08:40:42 AM
May I ask which? I tried a lot of games on my Commodore 64.
The Commodore was well on it's way out as an icon in gamer's psyche, when I was just starting to get interest in computers. It already smelled of a dying body awaiting it's final breath.
But most games have the common problem solving challenges involving guessing what to do with the aide of sometimes not very obvious clues. I've must have run into your light switch type scenario before, because I could sense the frustration that goes with it. Am I shooting the right guy? Should I run over to the left and start shooting that flower pot? and wait for a hidden door to open? Is there a certain order these switches have to be activated in? It drive you crazy sometimes, which has varying levels of enjoyment for different people.
I remember the discovery in one of my first games, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. It was the final battle to take out the uberbadass played in an arena with some obstacles and with his annoyingly but deadly minions. I had shot up the badass with maybe a thousand rounds and thrown all my grenades and dynamite at him, and he seemed unstoppable. I must have tried that part of the game 25 times until I discovered the answer: Just shoot him with another thousand rounds. Stop trying to drop that cement block from the crane on him. It's just a distraction, as are all the rest of those enticing things. Just shoot, and then shoot him some more even though he's unfazed to bullets and dynamite. Who would have thought?
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 09:02:23 AM
The Commodore was well on it's way out as an icon in gamer's psyche, when I was just starting to get interest in computers. It already smelled of a dying body awaiting it's final breath.
But most games have the common problem solving challenges involving guessing what to do with the aide of sometimes not very obvious clues. I've must have run into your light switch type scenario before, because I could sense the frustration that goes with it. Am I shooting the right guy? Should I run over to the left and start shooting that flower pot? and wait for a hidden door to open? Is there a certain order these switches have to be activated in? It drive you crazy sometimes, which has varying levels of enjoyment for different people.
I remember the discovery in one of my first games, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. It was the final battle to take out the uberbadass played in an arena with some obstacles and with his annoyingly but deadly minions. I had shot up the badass with maybe a thousand rounds and thrown all my grenades and dynamite at him, and he seemed unstoppable. I must have tried that part of the game 25 times until I discovered the answer: Just shoot him with another thousand rounds. Stop trying to drop that cement block from the crane on him. It's just a distraction, as are all the rest of those enticing things. Just shoot, and then shoot him some more even though he's unfazed to bullets and dynamite. Who would have thought?
But that where a lot of gamers started. You could use software to copy games, play games, and learn your way around a computer for office programs. My first spreadsheet was Commodore's Multiplan and I forget the name of the database (DBase?). When we got Excel and Access, I was off and running before my co-workers had a clue! And they never caught up. And not because I had the head start, but because they just weren't interested in the possibilities of computers. To most of them, a computer was just a fancy typewriter or sometimes an accounting sheet.
We are techno-dating ourselves ... I remember when there was Wang word-processing, and a nice woman would produce my document (for my correction).
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 04:13:22 PM
But that where a lot of gamers started. You could use software to copy games, play games, and learn your way around a computer for office programs. My first spreadsheet was Commodore's Multiplan and I forget the name of the database (DBase?). When we got Excel and Access, I was off and running before my co-workers had a clue! And they never caught up. And not because I had the head start, but because they just weren't interested in the possibilities of computers. To most of them, a computer was just a fancy typewriter or sometimes an accounting sheet.
Back then, I worked with a woman who was quite computer literate, granted she had a literary background, but I remember saying, "People think the future of computers will be in math. But it won't be. It will be in word processing." Well, I dunno. I didn't know what to expect. I suppose you could make a case for that now, but there is a hell of a lot going on in math. It's more than just word processing or math. I think of it mostly as data. It may well be that most people use it for word processing and I have to admit it's great, but data processing and it's spread to all sorts of other things like photography and cell phones and navigation seem more important to me.
Public opinion polls are for all intents and purposes utterly useless so I almost always ignore them.
If you're on any of the political mailing lists you'll notice that they've become more and more targeted so much so that successful campaigns can and do drill down in the data to send you a very personalized email message. While it may appear that the candidate is writing to you and only you they of course are not, but neither are they using a shotgun approach any more. It's really an outgrowth of what was called mail merge, but is using very specified data to target very specific groups.
Good article about it is/was on dk recently.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1590515
They can now track very specifically what news sites you've been reading on down to your Facebook feeds and to some extent your posts you've made or clicked the 'like' button to make a great guess exactly how you will likely vote or whether you plan to vote at all. They've likely predicted that I won't vote because in the past few years I've moved from Ohio to Texas back to Ohio and now to South Carolina, but I'm likely to contribute some amount of money to particular campaigns which from where I live now is the better investment being it's almost certain that all of the electoral votes of South Carolina will go to Trump, but I can and do contribute some amount of money to campaigns elsewhere. The data can pick up on this so the vast majority of the email I receive is asking for money to targeted campaigns.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 03, 2016, 08:41:32 PM
Public opinion polls are for all intents and purposes utterly useless so I almost always ignore them.
If you're on any of the political mailing lists you'll notice that they've become more and more targeted so much so that successful campaigns can and do drill down in the data to send you a very personalized email message. While it may appear that the candidate is writing to you and only you they of course are not, but neither are they using a shotgun approach any more. It's really an outgrowth of what was called mail merge, but is using very specified data to target very specific groups.
Good article about it is/was on dk recently.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1590515
They can now track very specifically what news sites you've been reading on down to your Facebook feeds and to some extent your posts you've made or clicked the 'like' button to make a great guess exactly how you will likely vote or whether you plan to vote at all. They've likely predicted that I won't vote because in the past few years I've moved from Ohio to Texas back to Ohio and now to South Carolina, but I'm likely to contribute some amount of money to particular campaigns which from where I live now is the better investment being it's almost certain that all of the electoral votes of South Carolina will go to Trump, but I can and do contribute some amount of money to campaigns elsewhere. The data can pick up on this so the vast majority of the email I receive is asking for money to targeted campaigns.
I avoid the campaigns. I don't respond to mailings, and I have NoMoRoBO set on my phone. I never answer the phone unless someone leaves a voice mail. And IF I get a political voice mail, I delete it immediately. The political campaigns can't find me. I never donate. I am the blank part of their data... LOL!
According to 538, it looks like Trump might snag the previously Dem-leaning states of Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. :(
If Clinton were to get any of them, it'd guarantee victory. That's looking less likely than it was a couple weeks ago. She's still likely to win, just by a slimmer margin. If the race gets much tighter, it might be anyone's game.
This election is shaping up to be distressingly close.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 06, 2016, 08:12:40 AM
According to 538, it looks like Trump might snag the previously Dem-leaning states of Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. :(
If Clinton were to get any of them, it'd guarantee victory. That's looking less likely than it was a couple weeks ago. She's still likely to win, just by a slimmer margin. If the race gets much tighter, it might be anyone's game.
This election is shaping up to be distressingly close.
The reports *I*ve heard say that if Clinton wins NC, you can go to bed. The election is over.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 06, 2016, 08:21:15 AMThe reports *I*ve heard say that if Clinton wins NC, you can go to bed. The election is over.
Looks like I'm going to be up all night, then. The latest NC polls are very, very close with Trump gaining a slight edge.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
So I answered the phone yesterday to another pollster call. Its been a couple of weeks. One thing that stands out is they keep asking for me by first name. My phone number is unlisted and when it was published (many years ago) it gave only my first initial. So they are getting my direct number from someone I was required to give it to - I am thinking it is the union I used to belong to.
Anyways, I have been contacted 3 or 4 times (when I answered the phone). The callers id themselves as some type of pollster, but I cannot remember the names now. None of them were like Gallup or localTV/newspaper.
I am curious about contact levels. Has anyone asked any of you?
Anyways the question are - Presidential only (some surveys ask about many races):
1. Have you been contacted for voter survey?
1a. How many times?
2. Did you answer questions or decline to be surveyed?
3. If you answered, did you pick a candidate or answer undecided. NOTE I am not asking which candidate, only curious about contact levels.
4. Have you filled out online voter surveys?
My answers
1. Yes
1a. 3 or 4
2. No - declined
3. Optional - because I declined - I think I would have answered undecided or 3rd party. If pressed about 3rd party I am not sure if I would have said undecided or picked a name or said going with write in.
4. No
I am very seldom polled, and I prefer not to be. I don't know if I'm helping or hurting. Mostly, I expect pollsters to have an agenda beyond seeking information.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/politico-morning-consult-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-230818
QuoteHillary Clinton holds a three-point lead over Donald Trump in the closing days of the presidential race, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows.
It's odd that polls change as much as they do warranting additional polling from the same sources. I'm not sure why it happens, and I don't understand why people would change their minds at the last minute. Are they just getting around to taking an interest in candidates because the election is now days away? Are they basing conclusions on October surprises? At this point the news coverage doesn't really deal with candidates historical positions on issues, and the news is more about things don't really affect us at a practical level. Hillary being investigated by the FBI isn't new news. Knowing that Trump was pushed off the stage by security isn't helpful either.
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2016, 10:38:22 AMIt's odd that polls change as much as they do warranting additional polling from the same sources. I'm not sure why it happens, and I don't understand why people would change their minds at the last minute. Are they just getting around to taking an interest in candidates because the election is now days away?
Elections naturally narrow towards the end, but there might be a bit more at play in this instance. I think the October surprise might've temporarily embarrassed some Trump supporters to the point that they were less likely to tell pollsters that they backed Trump. But after the initial shock wore off and Election Day neared, they're more willing to be candid about their preference. Trump's right about being able to shoot someone and not lose support.
Addendum:
There may have also been a couple missteps by the Clinton camp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNVT91ChlaM
This ad in particular looks like it was intentionally designed to disgust Millennials.