I wish this guy had a speech writer because he is a mess of a run on sentence for the first 15 minutes. Without seeing what he was showing as far as #s the words are meaningless. He didn't describe what data he used to bucketize people into the 5 political buckets.
Where he hits the mark is on population growth rate vs. voting growth rate. I believe he is dead nuts on the money that people gradually cheated more and more every year, to the point now that it is obvious (assuming his input data isn't garbage...it's gummint data so it certainly could be trash).
I wouldn't get too excited about this guy until/unless the data is posted on .win for peer review.
He seemed a little socially awkward, hard to tell if it was because of his personality, audience or the cameras. Though I think he definitely sacrificed the technicality, structure and form of his presentation in order to make it more understandable. Here's to hoping that the underlying data is solid
He used voter data over the last 22 years, to track how men, women, and U voted across all repub, mostly repub, half and halfs, mostly dem, all dem.
Basically like taking a 3 number combination lock, and trying every single combination.
So based on total number of registered voters, at any given age group, for male, or female, he could tell you the basic percentage of them that would fall into any of the 5 political buckets, and he ran that across every variable to come up with the 980,000 buckets, and he had 22 years of voter data to use. And things started going sideways in 2008.
I only ran through once, but what I understood was the party affiliation was used for the basis of the five categories. That makes the most sense to me from a statistical standpoint.
I wish this guy had a speech writer because he is a mess of a run on sentence for the first 15 minutes. Without seeing what he was showing as far as #s the words are meaningless. He didn't describe what data he used to bucketize people into the 5 political buckets.
Where he hits the mark is on population growth rate vs. voting growth rate. I believe he is dead nuts on the money that people gradually cheated more and more every year, to the point now that it is obvious (assuming his input data isn't garbage...it's gummint data so it certainly could be trash).
I wouldn't get too excited about this guy until/unless the data is posted on .win for peer review.
He seemed a little socially awkward, hard to tell if it was because of his personality, audience or the cameras. Though I think he definitely sacrificed the technicality, structure and form of his presentation in order to make it more understandable. Here's to hoping that the underlying data is solid
He used voter data over the last 22 years, to track how men, women, and U voted across all repub, mostly repub, half and halfs, mostly dem, all dem.
Basically like taking a 3 number combination lock, and trying every single combination.
So based on total number of registered voters, at any given age group, for male, or female, he could tell you the basic percentage of them that would fall into any of the 5 political buckets, and he ran that across every variable to come up with the 980,000 buckets, and he had 22 years of voter data to use. And things started going sideways in 2008.
At least that is how I understood it.
What voter data exactly? Last I checked this country votes via secret ballot. Did he use polling data? That is very different.
Check Arizona, specifically in this instsnce, and other states if curious about them.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.aspx
No excuse for no peer review. Lots of volunteers here on .win and elsewhere.
He used standard deviation on a Bell Curve. Chop data up 5 times and ~70% end up in the middle, with ~30% at each end.
What bell curve? How did he bucketize people into the 5 categories? Based on what?
I only ran through once, but what I understood was the party affiliation was used for the basis of the five categories. That makes the most sense to me from a statistical standpoint.
Great but how in the fuck does that translate to hardcore dem vs. moderate dem vs. jerkoff vs. whatever?