• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      Good afternoon Redskins fans!  I have once again been invited to sit in the relative comfort of the press box and shout my thoughts into the void via this blog.  As you watch the game today and see the rain  pour relentlessly from the heavens, know that I am safe and dry.  Know also that @Spaceman Spiff is out there somewhere, cold and unappreciated, rolling around in the muck trying to capture that perfect picture.  Maybe say a little prayer for his health (or laugh, whatever, I’m not judging you).  Also, be sure not to miss the pictures he posts on this site after each game.     
       
      Before we get into today's Redskins game, I want give some thanks for more positive occurrences in DC sports.  Congrats to the Washington Mystics for winning their first championship.  Congrats go out to the Washington Nationals as well for reaching the world series.  These two teams (along with the Caps) are working hard to change the sports related mood around this town, and we're all happier for it. 
       
      Lets move now into less cheerful topics, namely your Washington Redskins!  Yow know things are going bad, and I mean really dang bad, when your team has gone through three quarterbacks and two coaches and your not even half way through the season.  Today's fresh hell comes in the form of a specter of the our recent past coming to smirk at our misfortune.  Im talking of course of Kyle.  Kyle's spent the week assuring everyone that he isn’t holding a grudge, while very obviously holding a grudge.  “Everything else.”  You know what I’m talking about. 
       
      If all he brought to town were his hurt feelings we wouldn’t have a problem.  Sadly, he’s arrived with an undefeated football team that the NFL says we have to play this week.  This feels entirely unfair. 
       
      My generic key to the game:  Run the ball and stop the run.  The team (spoiler alert: 49ers) that does this today will win.   
       
      Redskins Inactives  
      QB Colt McCoy  
      S Deshazor Everett  
      CB Josh Norman  
      RB Chris THompson  
      LB Josh Harvey-Clemons 
      G Wes Martin  
      TE Vernon Davis  
       
      49ers inactives  
      QB CJ Beathard 
      WR Deebo Samuel  
      CB Ahkello Witherspoon  
      FB Kyle Juszczyk 
      T Mike McGLinchey 
      T Joe Staley 
      DL DJ Jones 
       
      1st Quarter Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers
       
      Callahan wasn’t playing around when he said he wanted to run the ball.  That first drive was all runs, and looked great... right up until they tried to pass the ball.  Hopkins missed the relatively short fied goal, because of course he did.     

      Maybe Quinn isn’t a good choice to be returning punts?  Consider it.    
       
      That second Redskins drive looked more like what we’ve come to expect from this offense.  Run for negative yards, pass dropped, and an unsuccessful screen pass.  A quintessential Redskins three and out. 

      Passing yards this quarter:  Redskins 3. 49ers 9.  Are you not entertained?! 
       
      Half Time Update
      Redskins 0 – 0 49ers 
       
      How happy are you to spend your Sunday afternoon watching this game?  Consider that some people paid money, to sit in a poncho, in the rain, to watch this game. 
       
      It’s now time for those half time adjustments that our beloved skins do so well.  It’s unlikely the second half mirrors the first. 
       
      3rd Quarter Update 
      Redskins 0 – 3 49ers  
       
      Good news, this game will not end in a 0-0 tie.  Those half time adjustments have kicked in as expected and the 49ers have found a way onto the scoreboard in this messy throwback game.  The Redskins have decided to spend the second half collecting holding penalties and sadness.  Mercifully, only one quarter remains. 
       
      End of Game Update 
      Redskins 0 – 9 49ers 
       
      Callahan hasn’t spent much time as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, but he’s already proven that his team can waste 2nd half timeouts like a veteran.  It makes little sense to adopt a strategy that shortens the game when your team is losing, and it makes even less sense when your team is short on time outs.  I’m not really sure what the thinking as late in this game.    
       
      Next week Kirk Cousins!   
       
       
Rdskns2000

Elecciones Presidenciales 11/3/2020- Meltdown Manchild Donny vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

God forbid someone's views change with new data. :ols:  Their takes change because voter's opinions are not static.  

 

538 has a particular space in the political media ecosystem.  I don't think anyone at 538 has minced words about what they do.  Again, it reports on what is happening in the world, that's what journalism is supposed to do.

 

Also, a lot of the stuff you post comes from a pro-Bernie tilt, and I can't help but think that 538's obvious bias against Bernie (that's snark) may be at play here.

Silver’s thing is to make a declarative statement using numbers and then change and make a new declarative statement using numbers, pretending that he didn’t say what he mentioned prior. 

 

The issue is we stop thinking about actual issues and only post about numbers. Look at the threadstarter in this thread, his only interest in politics seems to be the horse race. That’s how we have gotten to this point.

 

I actually support Warren but Bernie is my second. I am a leftist and most of this board isn’t.

 

I encourage you to listen to the podcast because while they are leftist, they talk about media coverage and how it impacts our politics.

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Attacking someone who runs regressions for a living because they aren't a crusader in your political fight is the height of stupidity and is something straight out of the Trumpian playbook. 

Hilarious 🤣

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Silver’s thing is to make a declarative statement using numbers and then change and make a new declarative statement using numbers, pretending that he didn’t say what he mentioned prior. 

 

Can you provides some examples?  Also, numbers change, and therefore the interpretations of numbers should change.  

 

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

The issue is we stop thinking about actual issues and only post about numbers. Look at the threadstarter in this thread, his only interest in politics seems to be the horse race. That’s how we have gotten to this point.

 

People can do both.  538 is apologetically about polling and public sentiment.  It's important because you can't enact change without winning elections.  

 

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

I actually support Warren but Bernie is my second. I am a leftist and most of this board isn’t.

 

I'm not a leftist, yet I also support Warren.  My second is anyone but Bernie. :)

 

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

I encourage you to listen to the podcast because while they are leftist, they talk about media coverage and how it impacts our politics.

 

I tried.  Way too much sanctimony and being full of ****.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I am a leftist and most of this board isn’t.

 

See @twa?  I told you this board isn't liberal enough

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Silver’s thing is to make a declarative statement using numbers and then change and make a new declarative statement using numbers, pretending that he didn’t say what he mentioned prior. 

 

 

So your complaint is that he isn't a head-in-the-sand dogmatic nincompoop. 

 

Thank you for enlightening us on the horrors of data analysis. May we all live in a static world, in which nothing ever changes.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heteroscedasticity.

 

Just because I still remember the evils of sadistics from grad school. And because it makes me feel like a pompeous ass saying it.  🍻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Can you provides some examples?  Also, numbers change, and therefore the interpretations of numbers should change.  

Man told us for a year that Trump Had no chance. Then moved the sliders slightly right before Election Day and tried to do a victory lap by saying he was less wrong than most of media.

 

36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

People can do both.  538 is apologetically about polling and public sentiment.  It's important because you can't enact change without winning elections.  

It’s not about public sentiment. It’s not about anything at this point, and he editorializes way more than you think. 

 

And he isn’t interested in changing anything. Dude sees politics the same as he sees a poker table. 

 

30 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

So your complaint is that he isn't a head-in-the-sand dogmatic nincompoop. 

 

Thank you for enlightening us on the horrors of data analysis. May we all live in a static world, in which nothing ever changes.

No, he actually does have his head in the sand. That’s my complaint. You on the other hand seem to like dude because he runs numbers and it appeals to your need to feel more intelligent than the average bear. Unfortunately you are missing out that he is closer to a data troll than anything else at this point.

 

what does this mean? Lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

It means Klobuchar's qualifications (according to him) don't match up with the people's opinions of her. 

 

Humans are imperfect creatures, keeps things interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Man told us for a year that Trump Had no chance. Then moved the sliders slightly right before Election Day and tried to do a victory lap by saying he was less wrong than most of media.

 

This is incorrect.  He consistently said that Trump had a 30% chance, rubes rounded that down to 0%.  Also, moving the sliders right before election day is probably warranted given the Comey testimony the week before.  

 

Here is that actual item from 2 days before the election:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-campaign-is-almost-over-and-heres-where-we-stand/

 

Quote

Thus, while Clinton’s a 76 percent favorite to win the popular vote according to our polls-only forecast, her odds are more tenuous — 64 percent — to win the Electoral College. (Her chances in the polls-plus forecast are identical.) It would not necessarily require a major polling error for Trump to be elected, though he would have to do so with an extremely narrow majority in the Electoral College.

 

Try again.  

 

Quote

 

It’s not about public sentiment. It’s not about anything at this point, and he editorializes way more than you think. 

 

I'm aware that he editorializes, he's also pretty good at pointing out when he's doing it.  Also, public sentiment = polling.  Polling measures public sentiment.  Sheesh.  

 

Quote

 

And he isn’t interested in changing anything. Dude sees politics the same as he sees a poker table. 

 

Yea, that's his job.  See @No Excuses posts.  

 

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Warren blows everyone out of the water qualifications wise. But so did HRC. 

 

But like twa said..humans are imperfect creatures. 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Personally, I think Warren blows everyone out of the water qualifications wise. But so did HRC. 

 

But like twa said..humans are imperfect creatures. 😁

I think a Warren/Buttigieg ticket would be lovely. 💖

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I think a Warren/Buttigieg ticket would be lovely. 💖

 

Speaking of Amy K, she'd be an interesting choice for Warren's VP. Not sure if 'Murica would agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need someone stronger on the foreign affairs front for veep...and a military background is a maximum plus for me. 

 

She's got the plans, he can sell them best. Just my pennies. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Silver’s thing is to make a declarative statement using numbers and then change and make a new declarative statement using numbers, pretending that he didn’t say what he mentioned prior. 

 

The issue is we stop thinking about actual issues and only post about numbers. Look at the threadstarter in this thread, his only interest in politics seems to be the horse race. That’s how we have gotten to this point.

 

I actually support Warren but Bernie is my second. I am a leftist and most of this board isn’t.

 

I encourage you to listen to the podcast because while they are leftist, they talk about media coverage and how it impacts our politics.

Hilarious 🤣

960x0.jpg%3Ffit=scale

 

I have no stake in the 2020 Democratic primary race.  I've already said, I will vote for the Dems candidate one more time in 2020 and then return to my 3rd party ways in 2022.  Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, even Bernie; I will vote for them.  For 2020 there is only one issue- removing Trump.   I just don't see that candidate  in 2020.

 

Joe is a senile old man.  He may have the support of the older Dem voters but he won't be drawing the young voters. They will probably stay home or vote for some 3rd party candidate.  Joe won't have the ability to counterpunch against the trump/GOP machine.

 

Bernie & Elizabeth will excite the young voters and they will come out to vote for them. Thing is, many of their policy positions will scare off the older voters.  Those voters will probably stay home.  I find it doubtful the youth vote can overcome those that will vote for Trump, to get him his 270.

 

I do view politics as a sport, especially when I don't really have horse to ride on.  I voted 3rd party, where I could, since 2004 until 2016. I firmly believe we need a viable 3rd and maybe even 4th party.  The GOP was already to far to the right and now it's a cult party of for one man: Trump.   The energy and where the youth is in the democratic party is to the left.  Eventually, the left will have full control of the Democratic party.  I think most people lean more towards center but they are no longer really being served by the 2 party structure.  So, I hope for the rise of more options.    The Trump presidency, has derailed that temporarily.

 

Right now, voting Trump out is the only option.  I don't think this country could take another 4 years of him; especially if he had a full GOP congress again.  So, know I don't really care to much about policy this time, since the only issue is removing Trump.  There's no denying the country will be moving leftward since the youth are more inclined that way politically and they will be getting into power and winning elections eventually. AOC will be a future Democratic presidential nominee.

 

I know the left wants free this, free that.  Maybe you should work and if it takes you 10 years to get a college degree; then it takes you 10 years,  Lizzie won't answer the question that in her medicare for all plan. middle classes taxes have to go up.  People aren't going to look at, whether their overall costs might go down. They are only going to look at, how much less will be in their paycheck and will it be worth it to have "Medicare for All".  Also, I've heard no mention on what happens to all these people that will lose jobs when all the private insurance goes bellyup.

 

If Lizzie or Bernie is the nominee, I will vote for them. Even though I will probably disagree with most of their policies. Senile Joe gets the nod. I will vote him.  My personal wish is that someone other than those 3 get the nomination.  I don't see it happening.  One of those 3 will be the nominee.  I don't have a real stake other than getting Trump out.  Whoever the Dem primary voters choose, I hope a miracle happens and they win.   Despite all the polls, I firmly believe that when push comes to shove; Trump will get his 270 to win reelection.  So, for me anyway; yes, I view this election, more as a horserace.   Maybe in 2024 there will be candidate I will get really excited for.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

No, he actually does have his head in the sand. That’s my complaint. You on the other hand seem to like dude because he runs numbers and it appeals to your need to feel more intelligent than the average bear. Unfortunately you are missing out that he is closer to a data troll than anything else at this point.

 

Data troll... lol. This is so dumb. The guy builds probabilistic models for election outcomes and you are grumpy that he isn’t shilling enough for your side and “bringing change”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

This is incorrect.  He consistently said that Trump had a 30% chance, rubes rounded that down to 0%.  Also, moving the sliders right before election day is probably warranted given the Comey testimony the week before.  

Breh what? He wrote an article saying he effed up on Trump?

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

 

his site also had it was 99% certain Clinton would beat Bernie in Michigan

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

16 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Data troll... lol. This is so dumb. The guy builds probabilistic models for election outcomes and you are grumpy that he isn’t shilling enough for your side and “bringing change”. 

Yeah

he is a data troll

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/19/more-voters-are-registering-than-dying-but-differences-by-state-could-shape/

 

Quote

First, there’s Illinois. The L2 data suggests that most of the new additions are independent or third-party, so the state is up there at the top of our chart. But The Washington Post is predicting that Illinois will [checks notes] stay blue in 2020. With some states, we feel pretty comfortable in making assumptions about the voter pools.


Then there’s Texas. We noted before that there were more new Democrats there than Republicans in our data. We’ll note here that we’re still 14 months from the general election and these numbers will shift as more people register. That said, Texas is down in the lower left part of this graph, meaning more identifiably partisan registration and more of that registration made up of Democrats. More so than California!
 

Interesting — but not as interesting as Michigan, where the new registrations are heavily Democratic. That’s in keeping with the average for those three states that turned red in 2016. They may have been won by Trump narrowly in 2016, but, since then, they’re registering a lot more Democrats.
 

Since 2016, those three states have lost 621,000 voters to death, may they rest in peace. They’ve added 1.4 million voters. L2′s data tells us that 752,000 of those new voters are Democrats and 247,000 are Republican — a difference of 505,000. These are the states that elected Trump by a combined 78,000 votes.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's perfectly legit to question mainstream media outlets focusing on the horserace aspect than giving voters info they need to make an informed decision on who to vote for. They are neglecting their duty and if you want to trash them for it, I'm with you.

 

If you want to complain about a website that was set up solely to examine poll data and complain that they are spending too much time "on the horserace", then that's just ridiculous. Might as well go to a makeup tutorial video and ask why they aren't covering the civil war in Yemen.

 

5 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And Nate’s takes, and others like him, are super flimsy and change with every poll. It doesn’t contribute much to our discourse and probably harms it.

OMG, someone who analyzes data changes his outlooks when the data changes?

 

giphy.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Breh what? He wrote an article saying he effed up on Trump?

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

 

You should read this article more carefully yourself. Specifically this part:

 

Quote

Since Donald Trump effectively wrapped up the Republican nomination this month, I’ve seen a lot of critical self-assessments from empirically minded journalists — FiveThirtyEight included, twice over — about what they got wrong on Trump. This instinct to be accountable for one’s predictions is good since the conceit of “data journalism,” at least as I see it, is to apply the scientific method to the news. That means observing the world, formulating hypotheses about it, and making those hypotheses falsifiable. (Falsifiability is one of the big reasons we make predictions.1) When those hypotheses fail, you should re-evaluate the evidence before moving on to the next subject. The distinguishing feature of the scientific method is not that it always gets the answer right, but that it fails forward by learning from its mistakes.

 

The very thing you accuse him of doing, ("changing his views"), he articulates why that's necessary for data journalists.

 

I know in the world of ideologues, looking at data and re-evaluating your ideas is a big no-go so I get the need for chastising people who are open to self-criticism and re-evaluation. Trying to hold their self-critique against them says more about you than them.

 

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

his site also had it was 99% certain Clinton would beat Bernie in Michigan

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

 

His site is an aggregator of polls and builds their models around them. The polls were wrong and as an outcome so was their model. But they were otherwise accurate on 90% of the caucuses and primaries in 2016. 

 

Really kind of dumb to go after people who work on probablistic modeling and then saying "OMG THEY GOT SOMETHING WRONG!!!". It's the nature of the god damn work that sometimes they will.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

It's perfectly legit to question mainstream media outlets focusing on the horserace aspect than giving voters info they need to make an informed decision on who to vote for. They are neglecting their duty and if you want to trash them for it, I'm with you.

 

If you want to complain about a website that was set up solely to examine poll data and complain that they are spending too much time "on the horserace", then that's just ridiculous. Might as well go to a makeup tutorial video and ask why they aren't covering the civil war in Yemen.

 

OMG, someone who analyzes data changes his outlooks when the data changes?

 

giphy.gif

My G, he tries to use data to spread his worldview. That’s the issue. And he says insane stuff like this:

Data guy!

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

The very thing you accuse him of doing, ("changing his views"), he articulates why that's necessary for data journalists.

 

I know in the world of ideologues, looking at data and re-evaluating your ideas is a big no-go so I get the need for chastising people who are open to self-criticism and re-evaluation. Trying to hold their self-critique against them says more about you than them.

 

And then he continues to do the same thing he did before with Trump in the GOP primaries.

 

And lol at reducing this to it being about ideology. Get over yourself lol.

 

The point I am making is he, and others, use data to say stuff like “electability” instead of having a conversation on the actual issues at hand and how we solve them. None of these people actually have a clue about what people want or will support. 2008 was 11 years ago, and I feel a lot of people still want to believe in the nonsense we believed back then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The point I am making is he, and others, use data to say stuff like “electability” instead of having a conversation on the actual issues at hand and how we solve them

 

Proposing solutions for issues is not his job. Why that is so hard for you to understand is beyond me. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, twa said:

I see Beto has been hitting the pipe again.

 

:ols:

 

Is there something wrong with DC residents actually having representation in the country they live in? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Is there something wrong with DC residents actually having representation in the country they live in? 

 

they have representation.....they are not and should not be considered a state though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.