elbuckeye28;1452481 wrote:... pure data dredging and confirmation bias.

That, in a nutshell, is the liberal rationale.

gut;1452487 wrote:That, in a nutshell, is the liberal rationale.

Interesting...

[INDENT]Romney wins, and could be by a surprisingly wide margin. I'll leave it at that, I really can't hazard a guess at the electoral # because I think most, if not all, these polls we are seeing are deeply flawed. It's anyone's guess where this race really stands - but based purely on the debates and the economy, Obama is getting creamed on the central issues. The mitigating factor - which is again anyone's guess - is how big his base is, how much it's grown thanks to uncle sugar, and how many of them are actually enthusiastic enough to vote.

My personal opinion is no one has a clue what the turnout numbers are going to look like and so they are are relying on 2008 turnout (because it's defensible given no one has a handle on what the turnout looks like) which likely is very generous to Obama, but could conceivably be understating the number (again, uncle sugar). [/INDENT]

In this post by Gut venturing a guess on the 2012 presidential election we have pure data dredging and confirmation bias. Must be a liberal!

BoatShoes;1452493 wrote: In this post by Gut venturing a guess on the 2012 presidential election we have pure data dredging and confirmation bias. Must be a liberal!

I explained that. I was right on the turnout numbers. I took the independent numbers at face value, which pretty uniformly overestimated Romney's margin and where the decisive difference lay.

In other words, I was correct in identifying one error, I missed the other. So I don't think you understand what data mining and confirmation bias are. You're definitely a liberal - that's not in dispute.

BoatShoes;1452493 wrote:Interesting...



In this post by Gut venturing a guess on the 2012 presidential election we have pure data dredging and confirmation bias. Must be a liberal!

It's troubling that you compared this statement with BigDogg's when they are nothing alike.

Gut's post was a prediction, which is completely different than BigDogg's misrepresentation of past data. In addition,he clearly stated that his prediction was dependent on the turnout. Given the record turnout of 2008 with the enthusiasm surrounding Obama becoming president and Bush leaving office, the 2010 midterm elections, and the gains Romney made in the polls, it was not an unreasonable assumption.

elbuckeye28;1452514 wrote:It's troubling that you compared this statement with BigDogg's when they are nothing alike.

Gut's post was a prediction, which is completely different than BigDogg's misrepresentation of past data. In addition,he clearly stated that his prediction was dependent on the turnout. Given the record turnout of 2008 with the enthusiasm surrounding Obama becoming president and Bush leaving office, the 2010 midterm elections, and the gains Romney made in the polls, it was not an unreasonable assumption.

I didn't really compare it to Biggdogg's post...I was just making a dig at Gut, really.

But anyway, That is an example of confirmation bias. Favoring the idea that the polls must be wrong because there was no way Obama could be up because of the terrible economy and then mining through the data to claim why the polls were wrong because of "garbage in/garbage out" only to have that blow up in your face when taking poll aggregation at face value was pretty much spot on.

But, fwiw, I don't really think Gut is all that biased/unreasonable of a poster. I just wanted to remind him of his days of using "liberal math" lol.

BoatShoes;1452516 wrote:I didn't really compare it to Biggdogg's post...I was just making a dig at Gut, really.

But anyway, That is an example of confirmation bias. Favoring the idea that the polls must be wrong because there was no way Obama could be up because of the terrible economy and then mining through the data to claim why the polls were wrong because of "garbage in/garbage out" only to have that blow up in your face when taking poll aggregation at face value was pretty much spot on.

But, fwiw, I don't really think Gut is all that biased/unreasonable of a poster. I just wanted to remind him of his days of using "liberal math" lol.

I see that you two are disagreeing on a couple of topics. That said, at least from that post, I still don't think that is so much a confirmation bias since it is a prediction of a future event that has unpredictable properties which requires assumptions, including a major one that was addressed in the post (turnout). The very nature of predictions is to take information, weight it according to some reasonable assumptions, then predict the outcome. Luckily in many situations we can do this mathematically through regression, but there are still many times we don't have the data available. Therefore, while he may have had a biased predictor, there was no way to truly know that it was biased until the event occurred. While his prediction was proven wrong, it just means that he was incorrect. It was still testable and falsifiable so it looks a lot like the scientific process to me.

BoatShoes;1452516 wrote:I didn't really compare it to Biggdogg's post...I was just making a dig at Gut, really.

But anyway, That is an example of confirmation bias. Favoring the idea that the polls must be wrong because there was no way Obama could be up because of the terrible economy and then mining through the data to claim why the polls were wrong because of "garbage in/garbage out"

Except that's not confirmation bias. And garbage in/garbage out was correct. I didn't question their actual sample data, I took that at face value. I questioned their extrapolation of the baseline/turnout assumptions, which were indeed wrong.

It's simply a case of the independent polling data incorrectly favoring Romney offset the baseline data incorrectly favoring Obama. And that's essentially what garbage-in/garbage-out is.

Kasich discussion please

Tax increases/breaks for "small buisinesses" and slips an anti abotion kicker into the budget bill.....



Looks like he's still on that ol republican script.

Good budget bill: doesn't attack our coal industry, doesn't attack our fossil fuel industry, doesn't attack fracking, doesn't ruin our health care, doesn't increase income taxes, doesn't make illegal appointments, doesn't arm rebels who behead Catholic priests.

Unfortunately it is just Ohio ................ vs. the radicals in the obama regime.

Devils Advocate;1466369 wrote:Tax increases/breaks for "small buisinesses" and slips an anti abotion kicker into the budget bill.....



Looks like he's still on that ol republican script.

Pretty crazy, considering he's...you know.....a republican.

I know....right?

Whatever script he's following, he's looking pretty solid. http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/4346614-74/kasich-ohio-job#axzz2aKYbSwNf

I really like Kasich actually, the guy has done a fantastic job and really I haven't heard my liberal friends even complain about him

Just a reminder to everyone that the state sales tax is going up on September 1st.

Add .25% onto whatever your county rate was for your new rate.

For us here in Cuyahoga now it will be 8%.

Quietest tax increase I have ever seen, as I didn't even realize it was happening until I just read the article.

New Ohio withholding tax tables go into effect Sept 1st; quietest tax cut in a while.

Good thing about sales tax is EVERYONE pays. Bad thing is it masks just how much tax you are paying (death by a thousand cuts).

You look across the country and sales tax creep has been a long trend. Not very good implications for talk of one day implementing a VAT or some sort of federal sales tax.

gut;1491964 wrote:Good thing about sales tax is EVERYONE pays. Bad thing is it masks just how much tax you are paying (death by a thousand cuts).

You look across the country and sales tax creep has been a long trend. Not very good implications for talk of one day implementing a VAT or some sort of federal sales tax.

Yeah, at least here in Cuyahoga 8% is really pushing the boundary on how far they can go with the sales tax.

I'm torn. I like the skin in the game idea that everyone pays on sales taxes, but at the same time they are very regressive and at a point when so many people in this country have seen falling or stagnant wages for a decade now they hurt even worse when they're increased.

IggyPride00;1491972 wrote:.. but at the same time they are very regressive

Which is being offset at the federal level. But it illustrates that bloated govt isn't only a problem at the federal level. A lot of states are in a lot of trouble with their pension obligations - which is basically the public/govt version of SS. And the writing is on the wall for pensions just like with SS.