US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Preezy wrote:Not sure I'd put much stock in 538's polls these days after they completely botched the election. They're still a decent commentary site though, obviously.

As they themselves said, Trump was always only ever a normal polling error away from winning. The media took the polls and ran away with Clinton's probable success. Blame the media for ignoring the fact that polling errors happen, not 538, which always gave him at least a 1 in 4 chance of winning.

Ok let me rephrase it - I don't put much stock in polls in general anymore.

I find when facing a Presidency defining moment, weighing the demands of left and right on a crucial vote on a matter as important as the nation's healthcare, it's always good to start off the day with an inflammatory tweet.

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/845249587178819584

The vote's too close to call apparently. Going to be quite a day. I hope it loses just so Ryan will have spent a huge amount of political capital for nothing.

It'll die in the Senate or during the parade of compromises and counter-compromises that'll come afterwards if it passes though, but that'd still hand Ryan and Trump this win.

Loony Nunes is back to confirming there was no wiretap of Trump Tower.

twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/845284803897425920

lex-man wrote:

Photek wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

Preezy wrote:Not sure I'd put much stock in 538's polls these days after they completely botched the election. They're still a decent commentary site though, obviously.

They were one of the few places that gave Trump any kind of chance.

The Night of the Election they had Hillary at a 91% chance of winning, they have completely lost all credibility.

No, most places did give Trump a 9% chance of winning. 538 were at 28%. Still not great but better than most.

I agree with a lot of arguments about the polling being inefficient or a misrepresentation, but saying Trump had a 28% chance of winning isn't "wrong" by itself.


It's saying that if you ran the election 10 times, he'd win 3 of those (which, for someone who was being tipped as an absolutely no-hoper who was going to get obliterated on Election Day, that's not bad going).

What's to say that 30% chance, when the dice were rolled as it were, is what happened? Like, if I said the chances of two coin flips both being heads was 25%, and then you flipped two tails, I wouldn't be incorrect, would I? I'd be making an assumption based on data or probability on the likelihood of something happening, not saying that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

It's not the same as outright calling an election for someone and saying "Hillary will win".

Parksey wrote:

lex-man wrote:

Photek wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:

Preezy wrote:Not sure I'd put much stock in 538's polls these days after they completely botched the election. They're still a decent commentary site though, obviously.

They were one of the few places that gave Trump any kind of chance.

The Night of the Election they had Hillary at a 91% chance of winning, they have completely lost all credibility.

No, most places did give Trump a 9% chance of winning. 538 were at 28%. Still not great but better than most.

I agree with a lot of arguments about the polling being inefficient or a misrepresentation, but saying Trump had a 28% chance of winning isn't "wrong" by itself.


It's saying that if you ran the election 10 times, he'd win 3 of those (which, for someone who was being tipped as an absolutely no-hoper who was going to get obliterated on Election Day, that's not bad going).

What's to say that 30% chance, when the dice were rolled as it were, is what happened? Like, if I said the chances of two coin flips both being heads was 25%, and then you flipped two tails, I wouldn't be incorrect, would I? I'd be making an assumption based on data or probability on the likelihood of something happening, not saying that it couldn't or wouldn't happen.

It's not the same as outright calling an election for someone and saying "Hillary will win".

That's true but I feel a big problem with sites like 538 that give percentage predictions is that there is no way to know if their predictions are close to being accurate as the only way to know for certain would be for the election to be run hundreds of times and then see if Trump won on approximately 28% of them. With presidential elections being only every 4 years and the political landscape often changing dramatically in between there isn't much relevant data to support the accuracy of the predictions, which makes them look like irrelevant nonsense there only to drive page views.

Also it seems that Nate Silver and 538 have no problem taking credit when their predictions are correct (even ones they give less than a 25% chance of happening, like all 50 states in 2012), so there was bound to be a backlash from their 'wrong' prediction of Trump losing.

For anyone really following the Trump/Russia story:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline

Senate Dems are having some fun with the name of a new bill:

twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/845322896574746627

Ryan reportedly went to Trump this morning to inform him that he didn't have the votes for the ACA repeal bill.

It's on course to crash and burn. I hope they don't decide to scrap the vote. How delicious it would be to see it voted down, to watch Ryan's career begin to head to Boehnertown.

It's been pulled.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Ryan reportedly went to Trump this morning to inform him that he didn't have the votes for the ACA repeal bill.

It's on course to crash and burn. I hope they don't decide to scrap the vote. How delicious it would be to see it voted down, to watch Ryan's career begin to head to Boehnertown.

Withdrawn - have to see if Trump sticks to his 'only chance' line

Are you sure? CNN only says Trump has asked Ryan to pull it. Ryan reportedly asked Trump what to do next, so it'll probably be pulled.

A great day. We really are winning!

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/697182075045179392

Lolnah Trump.

We're going to win so much you're going to get tired of winning!

Brerlappin wrote:#RepealAndReplace

twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/845369855167676421

twitter.com/JeffYoung/status/845371723952349185

The Department of Health and Human Services, under Tom Price's baleful leadership, has the ability to sabotage the ACA markets. And naturally, being full of empathy and only wanting to help everyday Americans, the GOP will be totally behind that.

twitter.com/andymoney69/status/845361368635183104

Ya think?

Well here's a piece of good news, the Republican's may not be able to ensure everyone gets the best possible health care, but they will ensure that everyone gets the best possible ads, because they just passed a bill in the Senate to make it legal for ISP's to sell users data to advertisers...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... vertisers/

The US Senate today voted to eliminate broadband privacy rules that would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies.

The rules were approved in October 2016 by the Federal Communications Commission's then-Democratic leadership, but are opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority and Republicans in Congress. The Senate today used its power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking "shall have no force or effect" and to prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future.

The House, also controlled by Republicans, would need to vote on the measure before the privacy rules are officially eliminated. President Trump could also preserve the privacy rules by issuing a veto. If the House and Trump agree with the Senate's action, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers...

Wonder if that covers incognito browsing...

Alvin Flummux wrote:Wonder if that covers incognito browsing...

You bet your ass it does as Incognito only rejects cookies and clears your cache once you end the session. Is someone is logging you they will know exactly what kind of porn you look at/searched for. And of course as there will now be a profit to be made I would imagine they will start logging even more data, like how long you stayed on a page or whatnot.