by Outcast_Searcher » Sat 26 Nov 2016, 15:26:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Wisconsin Green Party press conference:
https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlboA top green party official went over charts and graphs, he said for the exit polls to be wrong as much as they were, that's only a 1 in 850 statistical chance:
https://youtu.be/z1DgMsOzlbo?t=671Gee. 27 minutes of Youtube drivel from the party launching the suit. No cited papers or data showing how the "850 to 1" statistical chance was arrived at. At least he does admit there is no smoking gun.
I scanned through the video (I wasn't going to listen to 27+ minutes of that nonsense), and I saw a couple/few graphs where they don't like the fact that the exit polls don't match the vote percentage. Aside from yapping and arm waving, that appears to be the entirely of their "case" to investigate.
As if we hadn't just shown a clear example of the vagaries of polling...
Funny how the numbers game is played completely differently in a different context. After HRC's cattle futures-gate episode, credible statistical estimates of her being able to repeat her results honestly were over a TRILLION TO ONE.
And yet did anything come of that?
Crickets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_C ... ontroversy$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Likelihood of results[edit]
Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Clinton's successful results. Clinton made her money by betting on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.[12] The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Her activities involved exposure to losses that potentially could have been greater than her family's net worth if the market had turned sharply against her.[13] The former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team expressed skepticism that a novice trader could make such a return.[14] One analysis performed by Auburn University and published in the Journal of Economics and Finance claimed to find that the odds of a return that large during the period in question were about one in 31 trillion.[15][16][17]
Likelihood of results[edit]
But of course, since she wasn't ever required to put up adequate margin to trade in the size she did, her family never actually TOOK that risk. Funny how the poor people she pretends to represent never get such chances (illegally) thrown their way.