How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarchical Bayesian model

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by nilkn on Sunday November 27, 2016 @11:58AM (#13050100)

The coverage of Trump was entirely negative, though. It makes perfect sense that one could sell a magazine to liberals by attacking the main competitor to liberals in the Presidential race.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by dandersh on Sunday November 27, 2016 @12:10PM (#13050148)

And the coverage of Hillary wasn't?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by kobeya on Sunday November 27, 2016 @12:52PM (#13050333)

The coverage of Hillary tended to criticize her actions (e.g. regarding emails). The coverage of Trump tended to criticize his character. Objectively speaking, one was more of an ad hominem attack, which reflects poorly on the media.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by icebraining on Sunday November 27, 2016 @01:48PM (#13050638)

Ad hominem is a fallacy when evaluating an argument. When you're evaluating a person (as a candidate), arguments are necessarily ad hominem, whether they're about temperament or conduct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by kobeya on Sunday November 27, 2016 @02:55PM (#13051074)

As someone who thinks elections should be decoded by positions on policy not moral character or temperment, I disagree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by icebraining on Sunday November 27, 2016 @04:53PM (#13051772)

You may disagree with the metric, but that doesn't make it a fallacy, just a difference of opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by kobeya on Sunday November 27, 2016 @09:48PM (#13053065)

I didn't use the word fallacy. You did.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by rbritton on Sunday November 27, 2016 @12:42PM (#13050294)

Trying not to venture too far into a political discussion, I think the majority of the coverage of both was negative. Towards the last couple weeks, the quantity of coverage was very disproportionate depending on the source of the news [0]. People of the same political affiliation tend to gravitate towards the same news sources, and those sources appeared to be appealing to the affiliation of their viewers with the selection of information given.

The particular example I have provided is from Fox News because it was quick to search for, but I suspect you could find similar elsewhere about other news organizations.

[0]: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/787078152895901696/photo/...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by oh_sigh on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:09PM (#13051193)

Much less so than Trump. HRC also had much less coverage overall than Trump.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by eli_gottlieb on Sunday November 27, 2016 @02:36PM (#13050962)

It certainly was, but there was less of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by dominotw on Sunday November 27, 2016 @12:56PM (#13050354)

> We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously[1]

Most important part of the sentence: 'and tell the press'

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by the_cat_kittles on Sunday November 27, 2016 @02:23PM (#13050867)

"downvoted by bots already" i live on the same internet as you, how are you sure its bots downvoting you when im not? really destroys your credibility to be certain of something that you cant be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarc... by rguzman on Sunday November 27, 2016 @01:40PM (#13050588)

there is no such thing as bad publicity. at least early in the race, the battle is not against other candidates, but against going unnoticed.

[ Parent | on HN ]