The best prediction model in my opinion, and the only one I really paid close attention to, is Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com. He had Trump at about a 30% chance of winning, quite a bit higher than any other prediction outfit or betting market. The main difference with his model is that it accounts for the fact that if there is a polling error in one state, then it is likely that other states (especially similar ones geographically or demographically) will have a similar polling error and in the same direction. This is what we saw in the midwestern states with Trump significantly outperforming his poll numbers there. Outcomes in states are not independent of each other, yet I saw on television supposedly intelligent analysts making this ridiculous assumption (like Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium) and saying that Hillary had an over 99% chance of winning.
amazing 9/11 poll regarding WTC Building 7
Posted 22 November 2016 - 10:17 AM
I was more surprised by Raghavan Mayur who has it right for decades now.
But ofcourse I applaud most on the USC/LA Times poll with the Dutch professor. Our Arie Kapteyn : http://www.latimes.c...1109-story.html
The fun part with both of them was they couldn't believe the findings of their models . So they actually thought logically Clinton would win. Never listen to logic, TheProf.
Posted 15 December 2016 - 08:08 PM
I didn't vote in this poll because I don't know. America treated it like a false flag regardless, launching wars all over the place. Bush distracted by Saddam. Hillary-Libya. Obama-Assad. All these things made ISIS stronger. Why? Saudi Arabia and Israel hegemony in the region.
If Assad is still in power come January, does Hillary have to give Israel and Saudi Arabia a refund?
Another question is what were the dancing Israeli "art students" doing on 9/11?
Posted 10 March 2017 - 05:17 PM
Just if you fancy wearing your aluhead today: http://www.europhysi...n2016474p21.pdf
Lo, it doesn't match the "aluhead" comment to show us solid scientific information by very credentialed persons speaking against the mainstream storyline of 9/11. The guys in your article aren't kooks. They don't otherwise believe in crazy unprovable conspiracy theories like Bigfoot, or aliens on earth, or reptiles who have transmuted themselves into human form. No, these chaps are all very sensible and affiliated with universities.
- sevenseas likes this
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users