For topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Reward Name :
Reward Description:
Prize:
Closing Date:
Status:

Payout Rules:
The total reward is divided among all statements that were created during the period after the reward is offered and are established at the payout date.

The total reward is divided among all save events occurring during the period after the reward is offered that add one or more statements that change the status of the root and are established at the payout date.

Half of the reward is divided among all statements that were created during the period after the reward is offered and are established at the payout date and the other half is divided among all save events occurring during the period after the reward is offered that add one or more statements that change the status of the root and are established at the payout date.



Topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Rewrd Name :
Reward Description:
Offered By:
Prize:
Closing Date:
Status:

Payout Rules:


Conditions:


Topic:

Reward is a feature that we hope will inspire experts to answer important questions and make their answers available to everyone. It allows a sponsor to signal that they think a question is particularly important by offering a financial prize for established arguments that contribute to the establishment or refutation of the topic. A prize winner can keep the money, apply it to reward other questions, or donate it to charity.

Test string

TOPIC HISTORY

Probability Version: The Polls Arent Skewed, Trump Really is losing Badly (As Argued by FiveThirtyEight)



Statements

Statement Type Title Description Proposed Probability Author History Last Updated
STATEMENT This is True, But just one data point, hardly a proof, and Romney's Software Glitch Glommed His Turnout, So Maybe Those Polls Were Bad Too

This is True, But just one data point, hardly a proof, and Romney's Software Glitch Glommed His Turnout, So Maybe Those Polls Were Bad Too. If that cost him several points, then the polls were wrong at the end.

So while I don't think the polls four years ago are reason to beleve the aren't fair this time, I also don't think they are strong evidence that they are fair this time. Basically this data point is not that pertinent to the present question, because the operation against Trump is somewhat unparalleled.

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Aside From Bezos' anti-trust/cheap labor/tarrif concerns with Trump's program, the journos themselves fear and hate Trump from Shame

 

Here Bezos in the title refers to the owner of the Washington Post and Amazon, but all the other big tech firms have similar concerns and similarly do the billionaire owners of the rest of the media. Trumps whole economic plan is counter to Amazon's interests in cheap labor here, cheap imported goods from China, and gaining a monopoly position in  the market, and recall Trump and Bezos have already had words on the subject through Twitter and such. And likewise all the billionaires and tech owners and media owners have a vested interest in keeping

the rigged system going that they have profited from.

 

But in addition to that, the journos themselves fear and hate Trump from Shame.  The media hates Trump because they are scared their shameful complicity in the deeply pathological lies will be exposed under a Trump administration. For example, Benghazi and the video, where the media plainly covered for Obama and Hillary during the last election. For example, racial issues where they could cover the cases with innocent victims, like Garner, not the cases they focus on with thug victims, which they know divide rather than unite the people. And it goes far beyond there.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/08/09/real-reason-msm-hates-trump/  

 

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Trump Is Losing Badly 1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT Just because its highly plausible the media would fix or slant the polls, nonetheless the polls may be accurate

I think there are two plausible models a priori. In the first, the media onslaught has successfully assassinated Trump's character before the electorate, and the polls are measuring this.

In the second, the media is fixing the polls and Trump is riding equal or ahead.

So as not to bias the issue, I'm fixing this at .5 Proposed Belief of establishing that the polls are accurate/Trump is losing model is correct.

If you set it instead at .9, you will find it changes the estimate ele0 is right to about .32 with current figures.

0.5 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST We heard stuff like this 4 years ago

As a test of the assertion that the polls are skewed now, the observation that we heard similar complaints 4 years ago would seem to provide mild evidence for the affirmative.

After all, we presumably would have been more likely to hear such complaints 4 years ago if the polls were skewed then than if they are now, and presumably if they were skewed then they would be much more likely to be skewed now, so its hard to see this as anything but evidence for biased polls.

Now its true that the final polls then were close to the final result, but that could have been because the final result was skewed by Romney's software catastrophe on election day, so its not conclusive that the polls were not deliberately skewed the day before. The fact that the final polls were close to the final results is evidence against the polls being fixed then, partly counteracting the impact of the assertion that the polls were fixed, but not reversing it.


I project the likelihood we would have heard similar complaints 4 years ago given that the polls are skewed now, and thus are more likely to have been skewed then, as much higher than the likelihood we would have heard similar complaints 4 years ago if the polls were not skewed now, and thus are less likely to have been skewed then.
I'll figure the likelihood we would have heard complaints 4 years ago (as we did) if the polls were fixed now as 90%, and the likelihood we would have heard complaints if the polls were not fixed now (and by extension were likely not fixed then) as 80%. But that means the likelihood we would have heard complaints if the polls are accurate now is 50%, and the likelihood we would have heard complaints if the polls are fixed now as 90%.

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST Historically a number of Candidates have had big crowds and lost


"Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ 


OK, the fact that some previous candidates have had big crowds without the polls being fixed is evidence its possible the polls aren't fixed, but its surely evidence in favor of the polls being fixed rather than the opposite.

The likelihood of  Trump is drawing such huge crowds,and that Hillary is drawing tiny crowds, given that the polls are fixed, is surely higher than the likelihood of Trump drawing such huge crowds, and Hillary drawing tiny crowds under the assumption the polls are accurate. To get an accurate assessment I'd have to at least have data on how often politicians have drawn huge crowds while their opponents drew tiny crowds and won, compared to how often they've done this feat and lost. But I'm just going to estimate off the top of my head its at least 3 to 1.

Likelihood Trump draws huge crowds and Hillary doesn't given that polls are accurate: .2

Likelihood Trump draws huge crowds and Hillary doesn't given that polls are bogus: .6

 

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST It was predicted that the media would fix the polls, based on evidence, and some very independent polls show opposite.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/     

Predicted the polling onslaught based on:

 The Pennsylvania polling from Suffolk U is bizarrely disconnected from current reality.  Also today,  Rasmussen says Clinton leads by 5 points amid “unaffiliated” voters.  Keep in mind just last week the same Rasmussen poll had Trump leading by 20 points (44/24), with those SAME unaffiliated voters. Did unaffiliated Rasmussen voters swing 25 points in a week?… of course not.  That’s silly.  But that’s what they presented today.   The week prior to last week it was Trump +11 (43/32) with the same voters.

 

Also some unafilliated polls that may be fairer show Trump leading.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/05/north-carolina-poll-donald-trump-gains-32-of-black-voters-leads-4642-overall/ 

We need to estimate the likelihood this prediction and these observations would be made, given that Trump really is losing badly, and given that he isn't. Seemingly, we want to compare two models:
(1) Trump is losing badly, the polls are more or less accurate, and

(2) Trump is winning or tied, and the polls are cooked.

In point (1), the likelihood of the observation that there was this huge drop in the Rasmussen poll is not explained. Presumably it is induced by the media onslaught on Trump's behavior and sanity. Not sure what the a prior likelihood of that is, perhaps .2? 

The prediction may be explained by believers got to believe and a big internet, so maybe .9 to be very generous.

The local polls could be fluctuations also .9

In point (2) the drop in the Rasmussen poll is explained by the cooking, so the likelihood of the observation is basically the prior likelihood of the cooking. Perhaps .5, but certainly subject to wide debate. The prediction is also explained by the cooking, in addition to its likelihood without the cooking. So maybe .95. The scattered poll results are also then real and completely explainable, .95.

Putting it together we find .2*.9*.9 with polls true vs .5*.95*.95 with polls cooked but clearly there is room for discussion in these estimates.

 

 

 

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Basically, there are two competing Models: Media Onslaught Successful, or Polls Fixed.

Most of the evidence presented in the diagram: The fact there were complaints 4 years ago, the Rapid change in Rasmussen poll results, The Big Crowds for Trump and small for Hillary, the prediction that the media would fix polls, and independent poll results all argue for the Polls Fixed scenario.

FiveThirtyEight argues that candidates with big crowds have lost before, but they don't mention candidates with big crowds whose opponents have tiny crowds, and more importantly still: while this may not be a proof Trump's ahead, the crowds are certainly evidence for Trump not against. When we weigh the evidence, this particular Test is going to contribute so as to favor polls fixed over polls right.

They mention there were claims the polls were rigged 4 years ago, and the polls then were close to the final results, but that's also evidence for poll rigging not against it. The final results do not clearly establish the polls weren't rigged 4 years ago since Romney's software glitch on election day likely cost him a lot of support, maybe just making up for the rigged polls. Its maybe evidence that claims of rigging aren't worth much, and may be made in the absence of rigging, but the fact the claims were made is surely more likely to have happened if the polls are rigged than if they aren't, so it is evidence for not against, albeit perhaps not very strong evidence pertinent to the subject of whether Trump is way behind now.

They also mention there are more democrats and that registration claims don't indicate the polls are fixed, but this has long been true they don't indicate the polls aren't rigged either.

The only real argument fivethirtyeight gives that the polls aren't rigged, is that it is implausible the media is doing that. But this I believe is rebutted and false. They may or may not be doing it, but its certainly very plausible, if not likely.

To preserve impartiality between the two models, ele25 representing the a priori likelihood the polls are right was set at .5. It would be possible to argue for a higher value.

The results that are computed, currently around .04 that he's really way behind and the polls are right, reflect the assessments given to each these tests, which could well be debated. You can play with them and see how the value changes. If for example you prefer a prior belief of .9 in favor of media impartiality, you can raise it to .28.

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST Zip Question and Answer App shows Trump winning in a landslide

LOS ANGELES — Despite a majority of opinion polls showing the 2016 presidential election going to Democrat Hillary Clinton, a smartphone app developer says his data suggests challenger Donald Trump will be the victor.

“Based on the stats we see, he looks strong,” says Ric Militi, co-founder of San Diego-based Crazy Raccoons, maker of the Zip question and answer app. His app poses questions and polls responses based on an average of 100,000 daily users. “I go with Trump, based on what we see.”

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-IV6MrUkWwK5ikV69XC0x0Q 

I figure if Trump really is winning in a landslide, and the polls are bogus, this is very likely observation. Say  .95 at least.
If the polls are right, this however needs explaining. Maybe it can have one, but its at best .3

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
TEST These guys claim to have polled 1000 voters in every state and found Trump 67-19

http://arizonafreedomalliance.ning.com/group/watching-the-elections/forum/topic/show?id=6399857%3ATopic%3A102367&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic 

 

If this is true, I guess we have a 0 for the polls being right. and a 1 for them wrong.

I'm going to give this a low belief though of .1

0.1 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION The Polls Aren't Skewed, Trump Really is losing Badly (As Argued by FiveThirtyEight)

This Topic represents the arguments presented in the fivethirtyeight article and some responses to them. Please contribute if you have a valid point to make. 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Historically a number of Candidates have had big crowds and lost

Or you point to Trump’s rally sizes, though George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mitt Romney in 2012 all had large crowd sizes and lost.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Democrats typically do lead in party affiliation. The polls are not evidently skewed pro-Democrat

The basic premise of the unskewers is wrong. Most pollsters don’t weight their results by party self-identification, which polls get by asking a question like “generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a….” 

Democrats usually lead in party identification

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Its implausible the Media would conspire to slant the polls

 

Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it. Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/ 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION It is highly plausible because they are manifestly all slanting the news coverage

 

Also it was completely predictable. The whole system is rigged and the whole establishment is against Trump. They rigged the Democrat Nomination as Demonstrated by the emails.

The rigging of the polls was in fact predicted
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/ 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
STATEMENT The important news since the convention has hugely favored Trump, but the media have broadcast propaganda instead

 

Since his peak, the news has been dominated by things like Trump supposedly kicking a baby out of his huge talk, and Trump having interchanges with a Muslim Dad who was paid by the Clinton foundation and has long publicly promoted Sharia as trumping the constitution. Meanwhile the events that have occurred include:

  1. Trump giving a major economic speech laying out his plan which 85% of the people agree will help them according to a poll,
  2. Hillary and Obama flying ransom into Iran
  3. Iran executing a nuclear physicist who had been spying for the US, apparently based on Hillary's emails,
  4. Numerous terror events in Europe that Hillary's plans seem likely to import here.
  5. Hillary's episodes calling into serious question her health that the media is also whitewashing.
  6. Hillary's continual inability to draw more than a few hundred people and the media whitewashing same, including by outright photoshopping, while Trump continues to turn away thousands at every talk.

 

I would say, if its true that Trump has declined, it shows the power of the montone propaganda media and thus provides one more and very strong reason to vote against it and for Trump.

 

What you want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity. --Joseph Goebbels

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION It was predicted that the media would fix the polls, based on evidence, and polls that there is reason to believe are unfixed show opposite.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/07/28/beware-the-predictable-polling-onslaught-to-paint-the-potemkin-village/ 

Predicted the polling onslaught based on:

 The Pennsylvania polling from Suffolk U is bizarrely disconnected from current reality.  Also today,  Rasmussen says Clinton leads by 5 points amid “unaffiliated” voters.  Keep in mind just last week the same Rasmussen poll had Trump leading by 20 points (44/24), with those SAME unaffiliated voters. Did unaffiliated Rasmussen voters swing 25 points in a week?… of course not.  That’s silly.  But that’s what they presented today.   The week prior to last week it was Trump +11 (43/32) with the same voters.

 

Also some unafilliated polls that may be fairer show Trump leading.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/05/north-carolina-poll-donald-trump-gains-32-of-black-voters-leads-4642-overall/

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION We heard stuff like this four years ago

If any of this sounds familiar — and if I sound a little exasperated — it’s probably because we went through this four years ago. Remember UnSkewedPolls.com? 

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/  

 

 

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0
CITATION Pat Caddell describes the bias also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4grXyM_IUk Democrat Pat Caddell has words on Reuters Polling & Debate Scheduling 

 

Says its rigged.

1.0 Eric Details 2016-09-28 22:27:34.0