Attitudes and triggering the liberals…

So Trump pardoned Dinesh Dzouza (who violated campaign finance law). This might be a message to those caught in Mueller’s cross hairs, and yet another way to “trigger the libs”. Every time we foam at the mouth, he wins.

Trump is the troll in chief (11 minute MSNBC video; well worth watching).

The upshot: their goal is to draw our scorn, thereby making their base happy with them. And getting scorn from us is easier than, say, passing a bill and signing it into law.

And speaking of scorn: there is scorn for Kaepernick and Barr. But the actions (respectful protest vs. racist tweet) are very different and have different standards of decency. This is a well written article about that, and it is written by a conservative!

And seriously, the NFL protests are really the best kind: peaceful, non destructive and non-intrusive. But yet, many whites are outraged. There really is no protest that they’d approve of.

Speaking of football: I read this quote by Vince Lombardi in a book:

I want to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to be tolerant of a society who has sympathy only for the misfit, only for the maladjusted, only for the criminal, and only for the loser.

Then paraphrased stuff was added. Well, the longer quote (with more context) is this:

None of us is born equal, in spite of everything they say about it – we are born only in certain inalienable rights. But we are born rather unequal. However, I want to say that the talented are no more responsible for their birthright than the underprivileged are and the measurement of each man should be what each does and I want to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to be tolerant of a society who has sympathy only for the misfit, only for the maladjusted, only for the criminal, and only for the loser. I think we should have sympathy for them, certainly. I think we should help them, certainly. But I think it is also the time in this country to cheer for, to stand up for, to slap on the back the doer, the achiever, a man who recognizes a problem and does something about it, the winner.

It sounds different, doesn’t it?

More Politics The 2016 polls were reasonably accurate, by historical standards. It is just that many models didn’t emphasize how small Clinton’s lead was in key states.

June 2, 2018 Posted by | football, politics, politics/social, poll, social/political, statistics | | Leave a comment

Post three: voting and vote counting issues. We lost, but issues remain

Yes, we’ve heard this before. In 2004, the exit polls were off by beyond the margin of error, and we heard cries that the “election was stolen”. Now I am hearing it again after another loss.

I’ve talked about these issues after other elections, and I’ve had some conversations on the social media about these issues (Twitter and Facebook). So, while in an ideal world, my credentials and beliefs should not matter when it comes to the arguments that I present, they in fact do. So, I’ll state the following:

1. I am a mathematician and not a statistician, and I have no special expertise on political polling and ballot counting. I do understand statistics well enough to competently teach the math major probability and statistics courses though; I’ve taught this two semester sequence a number of times.

2. I believe, in fact, have little reason to doubt, that Trump just flat won the election, period. So any of my thoughts are aimed at making elections more fair and transparent and NOT overturning the results of this election; I consider such efforts to be a fool’s errand. And yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton and was sickened that Donald Trump won. And it burns me that it appears that the “loser” of this election got somewhere around 2 million more votes than the “winner”. But yes, both campaigns knew the rules and..I would assume, campaigned that way. There is evidence that Trump campaigned that way anyway…not so sure about the Clinton campaign…don’t get me started. Grrrr….

Now there are issues concerning this election, and frankly, most all elections in the United States.

We have the issue of voter disenfranchisement. We sometimes hear of long voting lines discouraging voters, or early voting hours being restricted.

Yes, those are serious issues which should be resolved.

But, what about the actual voted and the counting of those votes?

The polls and models being off
Yes, most of the models I saw forecast a Clinton victory, but her lead was far from safe.
Of the models I followed, only one said “no way Trump could win” and one said “unlikely”; even Upshot likened Trump’s chances of winning to those of an NFL kicker shanking a medium range field goal.


And after the fact: yes, Trump overperformed the polls…but he overperformed them the most in the red states! (states he was expected to win).

What about the exit polls?
The exit polls, as conducted in the United States, are more designed to study voter motives and things like “when did you decide on your choice” than they are to predict; in fact, their track record of prediction of close elections isn’t so hot. The article I linked to has quite a bit to study, especially if one follows the article’s links.

What about election vote tampering?

Yes, the Clinton campaign has been urged to seek recounts in some key states though the activists admitted that there is no evidence that hacking occurred. Yes, there were some irregularities in a Wisconsin county but no evidence than this was a mere outlier error.

Yes, there was a way to do such hacking; I can recommend this article by a computer science professor who is urging recounts for the purpose of auditing the election process. From this article:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

Others are saying similar things: a recount won’t change the outcome of the election, but it might be a confidence boosting audit..or perhaps a problem resolving audit.

The best explanation of the data we say is that, well, Trump won.

What about foreign influence of our election process?

This is a catch-all, but a nice collection of credible scholars is urging a Congressional investigation. They say, among other things:

We emphasize that nothing in our collective call for an investigation is meant to question the outcome of the November election. We simply know that turning a blind eye to such involvement would send a global green light to hackers and others intent on undermining our democratic institutions.

Nor do we prejudge the outcome of an investigation. As scholars, we give priority to evidence. The evidence made available in an investigation might show that foreign powers have played an important role, and it might show that such a role was negligible. At this juncture, we can only say that existing reports are plausible enough and publicly expressed concerns are significant enough to warrant Congress’s full attention and swift action.

November 23, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, poll, social/political | , , , | Leave a comment

Poll watchers: don’t let “convention bounces” fool you…

For those unfamiliar, a support for a presidential candidate appears to go up right after the convention for that party. For example, you can see that Trump’s support appeared to go up after the Republican Convention. Now you can see a similar uptick in Hillary Clinton’s support now that the Democratic convention is over.

poll bounce

from here

That uptick is called a “convention bounce”. Political scientists have wondered why this occurs. Here is the reason: a polling outfit gets its data by making random calls. Of course, only a certain percentage of voters take the calls and only a certain percentage of voters are willing to be polled.

It turns out that right after a party’s convention, a higher than normal percentage of people who support that party’s candidate are willing to be polled! In other words, right after the Republican Convention, the sample had a higher than normal percentage of Trump supporters whereas, right now, a higher than normal percentage of Clinton supporters are answering the pollster’s questions.

This is called “sample bias”.

Upshot: we really won’t have an accurate read of the election until a couple of weeks from now.

August 2, 2016 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, poll | , | Leave a comment

Trump Speech: fantasy

Workout notes: yesterday, 2 extra walking miles (to check out my smart phone map feature) and to see what my “just walking” pace is like. It is about 17 minutes per mile. Then 5K more this morning (15-ish mpm) after lifting weights.

lifting: rotator cuff, pull ups: 5 sets of 10
squats: 2 weightless sets of 10, 10 x 45, then 4 sets of 5 goblet squats: 25, 35, 50, 50
The “tug” in my right inner leg was barely noticeable, at times.

bench press: 10 x 135, 4 x 185, 10 x 170 incline press: 10 x 135
military: dumbbells, 7 x 50 standing (sloppy), 15 x 50 seated, supported, 10 x 40 standing.
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 50 (dumbbell) each arm
abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch 10 yoga leg lifts
headstand (so-so)

Trump’s Speech and the election.
In a nutshell, you need to be SCARED and to understand that Trump is the ONLY ONE who can fix it.

Yes, better infrastructure (which I do want), less crime, a quick win of the war against ISIS and other terrorist organization, all the while cutting taxes and building that huge wall between US and Mexico. He is going to do ALL of that, VERY QUICKLY (though it took him 73 minutes to tell us that). How? Just trust him; just believe.

Red State Update gave more or less the same speech in 2008, but in a much briefer period of time:

Oh by the way, the world is NOT falling apart, crime is actually down overall (though up in some locations); you can read the rest of the fact checks here.

As far as how the race is going: this is a great resource. Upshot has its own model, and it links to many other models and betting markets. The map hasn’t changed much from the 2012 map.

You’ll read a lot about “Hillary’s support is sinking”. The reality is that “no incumbent in the race” elections tend to be close. As I told a friend:

In my lifetime, there have been 5 “no incumbent” elections. The popular vote margins (in percent) have been:
0.17 (1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon)
0.7 (1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey)
7.72 (1988 Bush I vs. Dukakis )
-0.51 (2000 Bush II vs. Gore, Gore won the popular vote)
7.27 (2008 Obama vs. McCain)
So if there is a poll or two that shows Hillary with a double digit lead…it is probably an outlier. So don’t be surprised to read “Hillary sinking in the polls”; that usually means that there was a favorable outlier followed by a more realistic result. Expect, for statistical reasons, to see a few polls here and there that show Trump leading. A typical margin of error is 3 to 4 points and that is the MOE for the SUPPORT of a candidate, not for the difference. Example (two way example) if she really leads 52-48, Hillary’s support in a single given poll will vary between 48 to 56 percent 95 percent of the time, so one can expect to see her trailing by 4 points in some polls and winning by 12 in others.

July 22, 2016 Posted by | politics/social, poll, walking, weight training | , , | Leave a comment

About those general election polls…

Yes, there has been some tightening in the polls. I’ve seen a few maps; 538 shows:


The betting lines show slightly lessened odds for Sec. Clinton:


Clinton was at 4/11 and now she is at 2/5 (the larger the fraction, the worse the odds).

Nate Silver gives a lengthy explanation of why the recent batch of polling changed the model a bit. But while Clinton’s support took a bit of a hit, Trump’s support really didn’t get a bump up.

And so, with the caveats that past Presidential elections are small in number, I’ll just say this: here are the elections in my lifetime. I voted in the last 9 of these. I’ve listed the percentage difference (popular vote) between the winner and the loser:

year difference
1960 0.17
1964 22.58
1968 0.7
1972 23.15
1976 2.06
1980 9.74
1984 18.21
1988 7.72
1992 5.56
1996 8.51
2000 -0.51
2004 2.46
2008 7.27
2012 3.86

Three elections were decided by LESS than 1 percent of the vote, 3 between 1 and 5 percent, 5 between 5-10 percent, and 3 were 10 percent or more (landslides)

But if you look at the “no incumbent in the race” elections, the differences were 0.17, 0.7, 7.72, -0.51 and 7.27 percent.

That is, modern Presidential elections tend to be close, especially when no incumbent is in the race. And so, if the polls really are random, you would not expect one candidate to consistently poll higher than the other. In fact, the margin of error for the support of a given candidate is typically 3-4 points, which translates to a 6-8 percent margin in a two way poll. So even if Hillary Clinton is “really” head by 7 points nationally, you’d expect to see a few polls showing Trump to be slightly ahead. If her lead was really, say, 3 points, you’d expect to see a few polls showing Trump in the lead.

So, while this election is competitive (for now), expect to see a few polls showing Trump head.

July 14, 2016 Posted by | politics/social, poll | , , | Leave a comment

Rant: recognizing the limits of what one knows

I’ll admit that I am an expert in a very narrow slice of mathematics. But I am at least an AU from being an international or even a national caliber expert in that narrow field of mathematics.
And yes, I often read about topics that are not in my area; I enjoy popular books and articles on topics from the various branches of science, economics and the like.

Nevertheless, I also realize that when I read such a book or article, or when I attend a public lecture, I am getting a watered down, simplified treatment of the subject. I lack the context and the prerequisite knowledge to appreciate a presentation aimed at the experts.

And there lies one of my biggest frustrations when it comes to talking to people, either on the internet or in person. There are so many who really can’t detect the difference between expert knowledge and what they read (and perhaps half-digested …if that much) from a popular book. It is THAT level of “lack of humility” that makes some unpleasant conversation companions; I am ok with ignorance. After all, I am ignorant of the vast majority of human knowledge. I think that all of us are.

And, sadly, I see this lack of intellectual humility in political or social issues discussion, especially from the “losing side”. It appears to me that being on the losing side of an election (and I’ve been there, many, many times) brings out the worst in people in several ways.

Example: I had someone try to tell me that Hillary Clinton’s popular vote is “within the margin of error”, when one factors in the caucus states.

Of course, that is a dumb statement for a number of reasons.

1. There is a difference between a vote count and a poll count, even though both have a margin of error (remember Florida in the 2000 general election). The margin of errors in vote count is much smaller than it is for a poll.

2. The margin of error for a poll is 1.96 * \frac{.5}{\sqrt{n}} (assuming a 95 percent confidence interval and a relatively close election; this comes from the normal approximation to the proportion distribution. So as n increases, the confidence interval, and therefore the margin of error, decreases. Note: for more on polls, read this wonderful little article written by a physics professor.

3. Hillary Clinton leads by about 3 million votes, even when one counts the caucus votes. The latter doesn’t add much as there are fewer caucus states, and these tend to be smaller states. Anyhow, she leads about 57-43.

4. The person making the claim appeared to not understand that winning a small state by a very large percentage didn’t make up for winning a bigger state by a smaller margin.

Yes, by knowing that Sanders won a lot of caucus states and that there IS such a thing as margin of error puts this individual into the “above average” category. But this person was clearly ignorant of their own ignorance.

There is another factor in play: I really think that desperation makes one dumber. When one really likes a candidate or a person, or even a sports team, it is tough to accept an unpleasant reality. I’ve become acquainted with the latter as an Illinois football fan (“yeah, we have a shot at being Wisconsin!” Sure.)

Desperation can lead to an abandonment of one’s values. Check out the Republican Chairman’s take on Donald Trump

Oh sure, few would be surprised at Donald Trump’s behavior, and I doubt that a certain type of Republican really cares that much (“hey, what do you expect with Trump anyway?”)

May 16, 2016 Posted by | Personal Issues, political/social, politics, poll, ranting, statistics | , , , | 1 Comment

Please take my two polls: who are you voting for, and who do you think will win?

May 4, 2016 Posted by | politics, poll | | Leave a comment

Political Spin 101.

Get a load of the e-mail that the Sanders campaign sent out (I am on the list as I bought a Sanders shirt for my daughter)


Yes, ONE of the 10 recent polls shows only a 6 point gap. The other 9 polls, some of which are later…well…those aren’t such good news.

THIS is why the ardent supporters of a candidate feel cheated when the actual results come out.

April 17, 2016 Posted by | politics, politics/social, poll | , | Leave a comment

President’s Day Poll: Have some fun!

Ok, here is a list of the Presidents of the United States. Just for the fun of it:

1. List YOUR top three favorite Presidents that YOU can personally remember (in your lifetime, after you became aware)

2. List YOUR top three favorite Presidents that were BEFORE your time.

3. List YOUR top three least favorite Presidents (your lifetime).

4. Vote in my poll (post WWII) for your favorite President.

5. IF you lean Democrat or Republican, who is your favorite President from “the other party”: all time AND “recently” (last, say, 30 years)

My picks:
1. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (that order)
2. Abraham Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman (I almost put Teddy Roosevelt here)
3. George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (I am the only person in the USA who put Reagan on this list)
4. Barack Obama
5. Favorite Republican is Abraham Lincoln (liked Eisenhower and T. Roosevelt as well); favorite modern Republican was George H. W. Bush.

February 18, 2013 Posted by | politics, politics/social, poll | | Leave a comment

Election Wrap Up III: my demographics

Data from CNN
I’ll see how “typical” I am:

Illinois: 57-41 Obama.
Peoria (County): 51-47 Obama.
Peoria (City of): 56-42 Obama.

Males: 52-45 Romney
Age 50-64: 52-47 Romney
Latino: 71-27 Obama
Age/Latino: 68-31 Obama
College graduate: 50-48 Obama
Graduate Degree: 55-42 Obama
Income (none of your business 🙂 ) 54-44 Romney
Non-religious: 70-26 Obama
Married: 56-42 Romney
Married men: 60-38 Romney

Decided my vote early: 53-46 Obama
Raise Taxes on 250K and up: 70-29 Obama
Health care: should be expanded: 92-5 Obama
Repeal Obamacare: no: 87-11 Obama

So you can see that my demographics (Illinois, City of Peoria, Race, Education, non-religious) really pointed me toward Obama. But by far, it was the issues (duh).

November 9, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, Peoria, Peoria/local, politics, poll | Leave a comment