3 ms·

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration at

This is different than every Presidential transition of power, how? It's the aims of the control, and the utter brazenness with which the new administration attempts to manipulate facts and reality in general that are different. There's never been an administration (well, maybe in the 19th century; but I mean, not since the dawn of modern journalistic reporting) that blatantly and transparently lied about such publicly known and immediately fact-checkable things as crowd sizes on inaugural day. I don't see what's Orwellian about it. This morning the press secretary asked you -- yes, you -- to not see anything wrong with the fact that President still believes that "millions of people voted illegally" in the last election. And that he has "studies and evidence" on which he bases that belief. You don't see anything Orwellian about that?

ColanR 10y ago
Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes" is one of the same sources that thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide, then you have nothing to say. I'm not going to say I agree there were illegal votes, but I am holding out for better evidence.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. So if you met someone on a street corner who pointed at the sky, and told you "Hey look, it's orange with pink polka-dots" -- would you think to yourself, "Hmm, I'm tempted to be skeptical -- but then again, when I asked this guy for the time the other day, he gave a correct enough answer. So maybe he's right this time, too." If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes"... So are you suggesting that the "millions" claim stands until disproven? Is that really how you see things?
  - true_religion 10y ago
    If yesterday I thought the sky was going to be blue, everyone else swore the sky would be blue, and this lone fellow told me it'd be a blood red sky---and he was correct right down to the particular shade of crimson it would be, then yes I would take him a little more seriously. No one thought Trump would win. Even in the states he lost in, he lost be lesser margins than was predicted. Hiliary seemed to be inevitable---after all she is an actual politiclan, with real experience. The democractic machine is behind her, isn't it? She has the force of history behind her driving her to be the first female president. How can she lose? Then she lost rather dramatically. I looked at the election results and saw a sea of red from coast to coast, with Hilary doing well in high population areas but losing majority everywhere else.
    - logandavis 10y ago
      You have completely missed the point of the comment to which you are responding. In kafkaesq's analogy, knowing the time does not really indicate good understanding of the color of the sky, and should not be considered as evidence of credibility about sky color claims. Similarly, being able to read polls well does not really indicate ability to predict voter fraud. They both have to do with voting. That's about it, as far as similarities go.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      There is a rather huge expanse of land where that "sea of red" is very, very few people compared to the rest of the country. The color maps are silly and deceptive.
      - true_religion 10y ago
        Perhaps, but if a geographical area of your country produces most of your food, and contains nearly all of your natural resources, you can't look at the citizens who choose to live there and say "sorry guys, there's too few of you so we're going to ignore your wants and desires". Such is the path to resentment, secession and violent revolution.
        10y ago
- mistersquid 10y ago
  Predicting election outcomes based on polling (including exit polls) is very different than alleging massive voter fraud. In the case of Clinton losing the election, the predictions which were based on statistical evidence did not match the actual outcome. Even so, an unlikely outcome is understood as a possibility within the domain of predictive statistical modeling and the wholesale dismissal of the utility of statistical modeling is anti-science at best. On the other hand, asserting voter fraud without providing a single shred of evidence (regardless of claims to have said evidence) is quite different from evidence-based statistical modeling. So people who "thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide" could actually have quite a bit to say about alleging voter fraud without producing evidence. For example, such people could say that Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million votes. To turn your statement on its head, it is in fact the people who allege voter fraud without evidence who have nothing to say. EDIT: spelling, reduce number of single-sentence paragraphs
  - masonic 10y ago
    predictions which were based on statistical evidence Polls aren't evidence. In this case, they were barely data. There are polls which are designed to gauge opinion, and there are polls which are designed to steer opinion. evidence-based statistical modeling Given that the model failed, it apparently wasn't evidence-based.
- logandavis 10y ago
  The Trump team's "polling prescience" has been vastly overstated. Trump himself has admitted that, reading the polls, he thought that he was going to lose the election as late as election night itself [0]. In fact, he says, this is why he rented a smaller ballroom for his end-of-night speech than he would've rented had he thought he was going to win. (Leave it to Mr. Trump to feel the need to defend the size of his ballroom.) The idea that no outlet which was incorrect in predicting election results can be used as a credible source for post-election reporting is preposterous. Where do you get your news, if you abandon sources the instant that they make an incorrect prediction? Do you ignore meteorologists because they were wrong about that big thunderstorm that one time? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump-says-he-expected-to-lose-election-because-of-poll-results https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump...
- camel_Snake 10y ago
  So you exclude any pollster that's been wrong once? Doesn't that strike you as very un-statisticianlike?
- justinlaster 10y ago
  Flip a coin 4 times, all 4 times the coin lands on heads. You: "Statistics is bullshit."
  - masonic 10y ago
    Flip a coin 10,000 times, 8200 times it lands on heads. You: "The coin is not imbalanced nor is the process gamed in any way."
    - justinlaster 10y ago
      Not a very reasonable analogy at all. Of course you and your ilk need to resort to such nonsense to waste everyone's time.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ColanR 10y ago
  Ok, wow. That blew up. Let me see if I can respond to the main points. Seems like I went for shock value more than clarity in how I said things. The point with the election polling wasn't statistics. I don't have a source, but I read on HN and Hillary's emails that much of the mistake was a misassessment of the voter base due to bias. I'm questioning the likelihood that the news sources that were biased then will be unbiased now. > So are you suggesting that the "millions" claim stands until disproven? Is that really how you see things? Check my last statement...I'm agnostic until better information shows itself.
jquery 10y ago
Fact-check: There is at least one study that support the President's beliefs on millions of people voting illegally. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414... There is a Harvard rebuttal to that study, but that doesn't change the fact there is a study supporting the President's position. The inauguration was the most-watched in history (person + tv + live-streaming), yet the "reality" I'm seeing in California is that Obama's was far more popular. Who is bending reality? It depends on the reality you're already pre-disposed to believe.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  There is at least one study that support the President's beliefs on millions of people voting illegally. ... There is a Harvard rebuttal to that study... This rebuttal, you mean? "This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is zero." ...but that doesn't change the fact there is a study supporting the President's position. Do you realize what you're saying, here? "The study has since been revealed to have been basically bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact it supports the President's position." It depends on the reality you're already pre-disposed to believe. If you're already that relativist about about basic events in recent history that were attended by hundreds of thousands in person -- and witnessed on television many many hundreds of millions, worldwide -- as to basically say, "How can ya really know? It all depends on what you're pre-disposed to believe" -- then I'm afraid there's not much I can do for you, pal.
  - jquery 10y ago
    I'm not an expert enough on the math to decide which study is accurate, the original or the rebuttal (nor did I read the original because it's behind a paywall). Nor, I doubt, is Trump. It's not an official government position that millions of illegal immigrants voted, it's Trump's personal opinion. Much like it was Obama's opinion that Trump would never be President (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkIJEmOyoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkIJEmOyoA). Or that pulling out of Iraq and leaving a power vacuum wouldn't lead to the horrifying rise of ISIS and genocide (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-gen...). I think Trump's opinion is on the more banal side of things and won't have any severe consequences if he's wrong. That's just my opinion.

ColanR 10y ago

Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes" is one of the same sources that thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide, then you have nothing to say. I'm not going to say I agree there were illegal votes, but I am holding out for better evidence.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Don't forget that he's press secretary for the one guy who actually made accurate polling assessments prior to the election. So if you met someone on a street corner who pointed at the sky, and told you "Hey look, it's orange with pink polka-dots" -- would you think to yourself, "Hmm, I'm tempted to be skeptical -- but then again, when I asked this guy for the time the other day, he gave a correct enough answer. So maybe he's right this time, too." If your source on disproving the "millions of illegal votes"... So are you suggesting that the "millions" claim stands until disproven? Is that really how you see things?
- true_religion 10y ago
  If yesterday I thought the sky was going to be blue, everyone else swore the sky would be blue, and this lone fellow told me it'd be a blood red sky---and he was correct right down to the particular shade of crimson it would be, then yes I would take him a little more seriously. No one thought Trump would win. Even in the states he lost in, he lost be lesser margins than was predicted. Hiliary seemed to be inevitable---after all she is an actual politiclan, with real experience. The democractic machine is behind her, isn't it? She has the force of history behind her driving her to be the first female president. How can she lose? Then she lost rather dramatically. I looked at the election results and saw a sea of red from coast to coast, with Hilary doing well in high population areas but losing majority everywhere else.
  - logandavis 10y ago
    You have completely missed the point of the comment to which you are responding. In kafkaesq's analogy, knowing the time does not really indicate good understanding of the color of the sky, and should not be considered as evidence of credibility about sky color claims. Similarly, being able to read polls well does not really indicate ability to predict voter fraud. They both have to do with voting. That's about it, as far as similarities go.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    There is a rather huge expanse of land where that "sea of red" is very, very few people compared to the rest of the country. The color maps are silly and deceptive.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      Perhaps, but if a geographical area of your country produces most of your food, and contains nearly all of your natural resources, you can't look at the citizens who choose to live there and say "sorry guys, there's too few of you so we're going to ignore your wants and desires". Such is the path to resentment, secession and violent revolution.
      - 10y ago
mistersquid 10y ago
Predicting election outcomes based on polling (including exit polls) is very different than alleging massive voter fraud. In the case of Clinton losing the election, the predictions which were based on statistical evidence did not match the actual outcome. Even so, an unlikely outcome is understood as a possibility within the domain of predictive statistical modeling and the wholesale dismissal of the utility of statistical modeling is anti-science at best. On the other hand, asserting voter fraud without providing a single shred of evidence (regardless of claims to have said evidence) is quite different from evidence-based statistical modeling. So people who "thought Hillary was going to win in a landslide" could actually have quite a bit to say about alleging voter fraud without producing evidence. For example, such people could say that Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million votes. To turn your statement on its head, it is in fact the people who allege voter fraud without evidence who have nothing to say. EDIT: spelling, reduce number of single-sentence paragraphs
- masonic 10y ago
  predictions which were based on statistical evidence Polls aren't evidence. In this case, they were barely data. There are polls which are designed to gauge opinion, and there are polls which are designed to steer opinion. evidence-based statistical modeling Given that the model failed, it apparently wasn't evidence-based.
logandavis 10y ago
The Trump team's "polling prescience" has been vastly overstated. Trump himself has admitted that, reading the polls, he thought that he was going to lose the election as late as election night itself [0]. In fact, he says, this is why he rented a smaller ballroom for his end-of-night speech than he would've rented had he thought he was going to win. (Leave it to Mr. Trump to feel the need to defend the size of his ballroom.) The idea that no outlet which was incorrect in predicting election results can be used as a credible source for post-election reporting is preposterous. Where do you get your news, if you abandon sources the instant that they make an incorrect prediction? Do you ignore meteorologists because they were wrong about that big thunderstorm that one time? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump-says-he-expected-to-lose-election-because-of-poll-results https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump...
camel_Snake 10y ago
So you exclude any pollster that's been wrong once? Doesn't that strike you as very un-statisticianlike?
justinlaster 10y ago
Flip a coin 4 times, all 4 times the coin lands on heads. You: "Statistics is bullshit."
- masonic 10y ago
  Flip a coin 10,000 times, 8200 times it lands on heads. You: "The coin is not imbalanced nor is the process gamed in any way."
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    Not a very reasonable analogy at all. Of course you and your ilk need to resort to such nonsense to waste everyone's time.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ColanR 10y ago
Ok, wow. That blew up. Let me see if I can respond to the main points. Seems like I went for shock value more than clarity in how I said things. The point with the election polling wasn't statistics. I don't have a source, but I read on HN and Hillary's emails that much of the mistake was a misassessment of the voter base due to bias. I'm questioning the likelihood that the news sources that were biased then will be unbiased now. > So are you suggesting that the "millions" claim stands until disproven? Is that really how you see things? Check my last statement...I'm agnostic until better information shows itself.

jquery 10y ago

Fact-check: There is at least one study that support the President's beliefs on millions of people voting illegally. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414... There is a Harvard rebuttal to that study, but that doesn't change the fact there is a study supporting the President's position. The inauguration was the most-watched in history (person + tv + live-streaming), yet the "reality" I'm seeing in California is that Obama's was far more popular. Who is bending reality? It depends on the reality you're already pre-disposed to believe.

kafkaesq 10y ago
There is at least one study that support the President's beliefs on millions of people voting illegally. ... There is a Harvard rebuttal to that study... This rebuttal, you mean? "This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is zero." ...but that doesn't change the fact there is a study supporting the President's position. Do you realize what you're saying, here? "The study has since been revealed to have been basically bullshit. But that doesn't change the fact it supports the President's position." It depends on the reality you're already pre-disposed to believe. If you're already that relativist about about basic events in recent history that were attended by hundreds of thousands in person -- and witnessed on television many many hundreds of millions, worldwide -- as to basically say, "How can ya really know? It all depends on what you're pre-disposed to believe" -- then I'm afraid there's not much I can do for you, pal.
- jquery 10y ago
  I'm not an expert enough on the math to decide which study is accurate, the original or the rebuttal (nor did I read the original because it's behind a paywall). Nor, I doubt, is Trump. It's not an official government position that millions of illegal immigrants voted, it's Trump's personal opinion. Much like it was Obama's opinion that Trump would never be President (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkIJEmOyoA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkIJEmOyoA). Or that pulling out of Iraq and leaving a power vacuum wouldn't lead to the horrifying rise of ISIS and genocide (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-gen...). I think Trump's opinion is on the more banal side of things and won't have any severe consequences if he's wrong. That's just my opinion.