• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie, Shake Your Booty Pete & 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.