• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Computer Models Did Hillary In

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

Predictive models are like that. Even if you wrote them, they tend to imply a certainty that is just not there. You need a lot of experience working with it, before you get a feel for pitfalls. If you. It the things, you tend to pay your dues.
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

I am getting tired of the why hillary lost threads, I said well before any primaries were held hillary would lose, simply because she had so many skeletons in her closet anyone but the biggest moron could beat her. I was slightly wrong since even trump beat her.

Live and learn, and elect a candidate who holds the value of the people greater than the opponent, rather than electing a legacy candidate because it is her time, despite the fact she lost to a nobody senator in 08, and needed the democratic party to rig things for her to beat a nobody sanders, yeah thats how popular she was, she needed to run nearly un opposed
 
LowDown said:
Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't...
Click to expand...

I think this, and other factors, including the leftist ideology, did Globalist Granny in.
 
beerftw said:
I am getting tired of the why hillary lost threads, I said well before any primaries were held hillary would lose, simply because she had so many skeletons in her closet anyone but the biggest moron could beat her. I was slightly wrong since even trump beat her.

Live and learn, and elect a candidate who holds the value of the people greater than the opponent, rather than electing a legacy candidate because it is her time, despite the fact she lost to a nobody senator in 08, and needed the democratic party to rig things for her to beat a nobody sanders, yeah thats how popular she was, she needed to run nearly un opposed
Click to expand...

Bush Clinton, Clinton Bush. There was a reason even though Jeb had the backing of the RNC he did terribly in the primaries. People are tired of both families. I think that had a lot to do with Clinton's defeat. The Dems only put her out there, she was the only choice even though IMO most of the country are tired of the Clintons. The Republicans had many more candidates to fall back on when in spite of all the money and backing from the RNC Jeb quickly fell out of the running. Dems had no one.

Big mistake by the DNC was not seeing how tired the country is of the Bush and Clinton political machines.
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

They really didn't need a computer model to show Clinton slipping in Michigan and Pennsylvania. All they had to do was look at RCP. The last poll done in Michigan showed Trump up by two points. The last three polls in Pennsylvania showed Clinton up by 4, one showed a tie and the third and last Trump up by one.

Bill Clinton sense this trend and warned his wife, who declined to listen to him preferring to go with her staff and apparently, her computer models. The thing is Trump out campaign Clinton, I read an article a couple of weeks ago which stated Trump made 116 campaign appearances between 1 Sep thru 8 Nov, Clinton 71. Part of those 71 appearances were fund raisers in deep blue California and New York.

Probably most important as I see it, Trump stayed on message the last two weeks of the campaign. Forgoing twitter and stopping his foot in mouth disease. Trump won the voters who made up their mind the last week of the election by a 49-41 margin.
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

Hillary lost because she was corrupt !
Hillary lost because she was a thief !
Hillary lost because she was a massive liar !
Hillary lost because she was unqualified !
Hillary lost because she was a career politician !
Hillary lost because she was greedy !
Hillary lost because she was evil !
Hillary lost because she was scandal ridden !
Hillary lost because she was threat to America !
Hillary lost because she didn't care about working taxpayers !
Hillary lost because she felt she was entitled !
Hillary lost because she was married to slimy Bill !
Hillary lost because she was liberal !
Hillary lost because she is a LOSER !
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

Hillary was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign. This sort of thing wouldn't be a cause, but a symptom of that.

But it reminds me of when I was in grad school and my adviser recounted a story to me from his friend who was an architectural engineer. Their firm was building a structure, and of course digging out for foundation/basement levels and such. Anyway, you have to do something with the dirt, so you need to know how much dirt you're pulling up so you can get the trucks and whatever else is necessary to move the dirt off the lot. One of the engineers for the firm was in charge of this, and was using a computer program to do so. The program said X tonnes of dirt (or whatever unit, damn it I'm a physicist not an engineer), and my adviser's friend would inspect the site and saw the pile of dirt mounting up, talked to the guy in charge and he played it off. The computer said X, it's X, he made sure all the arrangements for X amount were taken care of. Meanwhile, the dirt was piling up and it was obvious that what the computer was calculating was not what reality was reflecting. Turns out there was an error in the calculations, but the engineer in charge had no idea because he had no idea what the computer was really doing or how to compare the results it said with the physical measurements from outside. In the end, they ended up with far more dirt than expected, and construction slowed for a bit while they took care of it, and the engineer in charge was fired.

The point, my adviser always tried to instill in me, was that you need to know how a program is working and you need to be able to understand/determine if the answers it gives you made sense and match reality. Always take measurements and compare to the prediction, make sure they're tracking.
 
Ikari said:
Hillary was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign. This sort of thing wouldn't be a cause, but a symptom of that.

But it reminds me of when I was in grad school and my adviser recounted a story to me from his friend who was an architectural engineer. Their firm was building a structure, and of course digging out for foundation/basement levels and such. Anyway, you have to do something with the dirt, so you need to know how much dirt you're pulling up so you can get the trucks and whatever else is necessary to move the dirt off the lot. One of the engineers for the firm was in charge of this, and was using a computer program to do so. The program said X tonnes of dirt (or whatever unit, damn it I'm a physicist not an engineer), and my adviser's friend would inspect the site and saw the pile of dirt mounting up, talked to the guy in charge and he played it off. The computer said X, it's X, he made sure all the arrangements for X amount were taken care of. Meanwhile, the dirt was piling up and it was obvious that what the computer was calculating was not what reality was reflecting. Turns out there was an error in the calculations, but the engineer in charge had no idea because he had no idea what the computer was really doing or how to compare the results it said with the physical measurements from outside. In the end, they ended up with far more dirt than expected, and construction slowed for a bit while they took care of it, and the engineer in charge was fired.

The point, my adviser always tried to instill in me, was that you need to know how a program is working and you need to be able to understand/determine if the answers it gives you made sense and match reality. Always take measurements and compare to the prediction, make sure they're tracking.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say that if Hillary had used her computer models correctly that she'd have won. I just thought it was interesting that in this, too, people have an almost religious faith in complex multivariable computer models and are ignorant of their inner workings.
 
LowDown said:
I didn't mean to say that if Hillary had used her computer models correctly that she'd have won. I just thought it was interesting that in this, too, people have an almost religious faith in complex multivariable computer models and are ignorant of their inner workings.
Click to expand...

I agree. We become transfixed on the outcome of a computer program, but often times we don't know what's behind the computer program, how it got its answer, and if the answer is actually the correct/best one. Perhaps we all do this on some level. Despite my attempts to either know what a computer gives me or be suspect of it, there is at least one place in which I rarely question the result...GPS. I may, at most, tell it that I don't want to take like toll roads, but other than that, if it gives me a route and says it's the best, I'm almost universally going to take it.

And perhaps as we integrate more and more with computer and machine, we will more and more take the results of such as gospel.
 
LowDown said:
Here's a fascinating tidbit about the election: The Hillary campaign relied on an election model, a computer model, essentially, to guide their actions. Going up against Trump, though, this didn't work because the model could not process Trump's strategy, which was unprecedented. It could not go beyond its programming.

Hillary's campaign relied so completely on the model that they didn't even do polling in battleground states they needed to win, according to Charlie Cook. As a result when Hillary's standing in states like Michigan and Wisconsin slipped the models missed it. The campaign failed to respond.

I'd be willing to bet that none of the people in Hillary's campaign knew how the model worked. It might as well have been magic as far as they were concerned. When the models went wobbly they could not see what was happening. When the methods used by the model didn't fit the situation they were in they could not see it.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1
Click to expand...

Oh, BS...just another excuse.

Face it, Hillary ran a disasterous campaign, she assumed she had a lock on the blue states, she did less actual campaign appearances than she did fundraising a appearances.

Meanwhile, Trump had four or more rallies a day...almost every day...for months...in the States that mattered.
 
I totally agree as I am one who said, "No more Clintons and no more Bushes" during the primary races.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom