News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How (not) to forecast an election: Analysis via a hierarchical Bayesian model. Parent comment

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 ]