Political Discussion

www.cnn.com

Senate resolution to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg blocked after partisan fighting over language

The US Senate failed to agree on language for a resolution honoring the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sign of how divided the chamber is over the Supreme Court vacancy.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The US Senate failed to agree on language for a resolution honoring the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sign of how divided the chamber is over the Supreme Court vacancy.
Click to expand...


Can't say I'm not surprised. Our elected politicians are so partisan that we can't even agree on something like a resolution to honore RBG.
 
wokeupnew said:
I don’t always like to put a lot of stock into polls because they aren’t always accurate but this is a good thread about polling and I decided voters.



Compared to 2016 there are far fewer undecideds in 2020 who ended up breaking Trump’s way in 2016. Biden’s lead, currently in some swing states is not as surmountable if undecided voters end up voting in a majority for Trump. This is based on recent polling and could change, but I’m feeling a little bit better now than I had been before.
Click to expand...


This happens because people don’t understand standard error of measurement.
 
Dtknuckles said:
This happens because people don’t understand standard error of measurement.
Click to expand...

Yes - the general public has very little understanding of "margin of error" and definitely don't understand the value and necessity of 2 standard deviations as a statistical confidence measure. Scientists / analysts are comfortable are more comfortable with variability and "maybe" than most
 
ayayrawn said:
These people are worse than useless.
Click to expand...
Nancy and Chuck truly have me ready to rip my fucking hair out. The president saying last night, "hmm maybe I won't leave office" should have set off some sort of blaring emergency beacon, and all we've seen are some varation of "no you can't do that" or "vote" it's fucking pathetic. Joe Biden is nowhere to be seen, these people have absolutely nothing by way of fighting this.
 
jaycee said:
Yes - the general public has very little understanding of "margin of error" and definitely don't understand the value and necessity of 2 standard deviations as a statistical confidence measure. Scientists / analysts are comfortable are more comfortable with variability and "maybe" than most
Click to expand...

Honestly it only a concept I was introduced to in grad school and as you can see by my misnaming I’m on shaking footing with using it. I can’t fault people that haven’t even read scientific research papers for not understanding. These are usually the same people that complain about more Dems in a sample group. They don’t understand why you need a representative sample. The country has more Dems in it.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Meanwhile:



"I'll accept the election results if the Supreme Court that I'm stacking in my favor says I have to" has so many layers of alarming stuff packed into it.
Click to expand...




  • Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) told "Fox & Friends" that he "can assure" there will be a peaceful transition of power, adding that "if the Republicans lose we will accept that result" — without directly addressing Trump's statements.
Which is it Lindsey? This man is garbage too. Then again he is kissing up to Trump in hope that it will save his Senate seat. The fact that race would be even close says a lot about Lindsey Graham.
 
Last edited:
ayayrawn said:
For god sake, it's bullshit! They can condemn it all they want, but ultimately they will do absolutely nothing to stop it.
Click to expand...

Also part of me thinks Trump will not go this away, this man has way too much money in the stock market and wealth to lose a ton of it by trying to stay in power. A prolonged constitutional crisis would absolutely destroy the markets and Republicans love their money.
 
Twentytwo said:
Also part of me thinks Trump will not go this away, this man has way too much money in the stock market and wealth to lose a ton of it by trying to stay in power. A prolonged constitutional crisis would absolutely destroy the markets and Republicans love their money.
Click to expand...
I don't even know anymore. If staying in office is how he's avoiding being indicted for financial crimes by the state of New York, I don't know if anything would stop him.
 
Twentytwo said:
Great point. Like I said let's just have Biden win the election in a way where it leaves no doubt.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I won't fault Dems for their primary message being "Vote." If nothing else, that's literally the only thing that the majority of us CAN do at the moment. An overwhelming popular vote can only help the cause.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Honestly it only a concept I was introduced to in grad school and as you can see by my misnaming I’m on shaking footing with using it. I can’t fault people that haven’t even read scientific research papers for not understanding. These are usually the same people that complain about more Dems in a sample group. They don’t understand why you need a representative sample. The country has more Dems in it.
Click to expand...

I don't fault them either. It's not something that needs to be confusing or that you need to read scientific papers to understand, but it isn't taught in high school or even very well at the undergrad level - and it should be.

People have an expectation when they see a number that it is that thing and can only be that thing, which is why it's important to at least be able to think about how the number got there - presumably why math teachers make us (or used to) show out work.

I've moved more into some social science areas recently with my work and the idea of representative sample means something entirely different when it comes to humans than it does when you're talking about nature.
 
Twentytwo said:
Great point. Like I said let's just have Biden win the election in a way where it leaves no doubt.
Click to expand...
So Biden somehow, by some miracle, wins by a lot, openly. The administration has casually talked about installing faithful electors that will vote for him anyway. There are states where it is legal for electors to ignore voters. Trump cries foul of fraud in close states (where thousands of ballots will likely disappear). It goes to a 6-3 conservative supreme court. Or he just outright shows up at inauguration. What then? Who's going to stop them?

This is effectively the opposition we have: Excuse Me, Mr. Trump, Sir, But, Respectfully, Dr. Trump, Mind You, Captain President, Sir, And There's Nothing You Can Do About It, Good Professor!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top