Talk:1131: Math - Revision history

The Cat Lady at 20:43, 19 September 2021

2021-09-19T20:43:39Z

Pelosujamo: comment

2019-08-05T00:35:04Z

comment

Probably not Douglas Hofstadter: Added a comment.

2018-09-23T13:58:27Z

Added a comment.

172.69.62.88 at 03:04, 4 March 2018

2018-03-04T03:04:13Z

173.245.52.109 at 22:18, 7 February 2018

2018-02-07T22:18:49Z

76.184.6.193 at 02:56, 5 March 2013

2013-03-05T02:56:59Z

72.169.224.103 at 15:45, 5 December 2012

2012-12-05T15:45:33Z

Waldir at 00:03, 5 December 2012

2012-12-05T00:03:59Z

70.91.188.49: Sign my change

2012-12-04T16:19:31Z

Sign my change

70.91.188.49: Clarify comment

2012-12-04T16:17:23Z

Clarify comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 19 September 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)		Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
	:Statistical analysis of the polling data by FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a much better chance than it did Romney; but that was due to a number of factors not picked up by pundits, like the high number of undecideds in the run-up to the 2016 election, and that Nate Silver's models (correctly) showed the Electoral College as favoring Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2016 in case of a close popular vote. Raw nationwide polling numbers, without that statistical analysis, didn't look good for Trump. [[User:Pelosujamo\|Pelosujamo]] ([[User talk:Pelosujamo\|talk]]) 00:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)		:Statistical analysis of the polling data by FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a much better chance than it did Romney; but that was due to a number of factors not picked up by pundits, like the high number of undecideds in the run-up to the 2016 election, and that Nate Silver's models (correctly) showed the Electoral College as favoring Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2016 in case of a close popular vote. Raw nationwide polling numbers, without that statistical analysis, didn't look good for Trump. [[User:Pelosujamo\|Pelosujamo]] ([[User talk:Pelosujamo\|talk]]) 00:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
		+	::Nate Silver and most other analysts vastly underestimated the high levels of misogyny prevalent in the USA that caused Hilary to lose to Trump. [[User:The Cat Lady\|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady\|talk]]) 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:35, 5 August 2019
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)		Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
		+	:Statistical analysis of the polling data by FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a much better chance than it did Romney; but that was due to a number of factors not picked up by pundits, like the high number of undecideds in the run-up to the 2016 election, and that Nate Silver's models (correctly) showed the Electoral College as favoring Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2016 in case of a close popular vote. Raw nationwide polling numbers, without that statistical analysis, didn't look good for Trump. [[User:Pelosujamo\|Pelosujamo]] ([[User talk:Pelosujamo\|talk]]) 00:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 23 September 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:

	I removed the tag, and expanded the title text explanation.		I removed the tag, and expanded the title text explanation.
		+
		+	Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter\|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 4 March 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	"Explain the title text." What's there to explain? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.109\|173.245.52.109]] 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)		"Explain the title text." What's there to explain? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.109\|173.245.52.109]] 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
		+
		+	I removed the tag, and expanded the title text explanation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 7 February 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:

	I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)		I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	"Explain the title text." What's there to explain? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.109\|173.245.52.109]] 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:56, 5 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	I really like the term "dramatically equal." - Kieran
		+
	Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod		Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :Yes and no.  In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format.  You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 :I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. [[User:mwburden|mwburden]] 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 [http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}
 I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)