Your Predictions on Democrat Conspiracies and Possible Implosion over Iowa
So, last night, six different Iowa precincts were decided for the Democrats by coin toss. And Hillary Clinton won every single toss.
The odds of winning six consecutive coin tosses is 1 in (2^6), or 1 in 64.
Any novice gambler who ever thought that a Martingale betting strategy was a great system and then subsequently lost his shirt (and then subsequently learned himself up a bit to find that Martingale betting strategies are a dumb idea) will tell you that 1 in 64 is not out of the realm of real world possibilities. So, Clinton could have feasibly really won each coin toss.
Add to the mix that I believe each coin toss was held in a different location, at a different time, by different people, was conducted before public witnesses, and was caught on video. Regardless, to some, and probably justifiably, none of this will detract from the inescapable fact that the winner was a Clinton.
So, in your opinion,
1) were all/any of the coin tosses rigged?
2) regardless of possible rigging, how will the Sanders supporters react?
3) if you believe that Sanders supporters will react in a conspiratorial fashion, what does this mean for the Democrat party?
The odds of winning six consecutive coin tosses is 1 in (2^6), or 1 in 64.
Any novice gambler who ever thought that a Martingale betting strategy was a great system and then subsequently lost his shirt (and then subsequently learned himself up a bit to find that Martingale betting strategies are a dumb idea) will tell you that 1 in 64 is not out of the realm of real world possibilities. So, Clinton could have feasibly really won each coin toss.
Add to the mix that I believe each coin toss was held in a different location, at a different time, by different people, was conducted before public witnesses, and was caught on video. Regardless, to some, and probably justifiably, none of this will detract from the inescapable fact that the winner was a Clinton.
So, in your opinion,
1) were all/any of the coin tosses rigged?
2) regardless of possible rigging, how will the Sanders supporters react?
3) if you believe that Sanders supporters will react in a conspiratorial fashion, what does this mean for the Democrat party?
Coin tossing tech is well understood, so likely wasn't magic.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle
Given that politicians are involved,
http://watchdog.org/242413/democrat-v...
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/cl...
http://www.heritage.org/research/repo...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA636....
The odds say rigged.
sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.
-- memorized that a looooooooong time ago. -- j
.
Clarke's first law
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Clarke's second law
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Clarke's third law
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Jan
.
Yes, Heinlein was also my favorite for a long time. I fell off the back of the truck when I read some of his later novels (and still have not read many of them).
Jan
excerpts from LL's notebooks got me. . isn't it wonderful
how they look like orchids? . lovely! . / little girls and
butterflies need no excuse. -- j
.
Jan
.
I liked the one I saw last night on TV... the woman looks at the coin that just landed, and with a look of.. what, disdain? Disgust? Disillusionment? which is reflected in her voice, and says "Clinton".
My feeling was if you have an even number of precincts that are dead even ties, then half goes to each side. In this case, if there were 6, then 3 goes to one side, three to the other. If it's an odd number - then a random coin toss for that one odd district (and it doesn't matter which one)...
Then again... it IS the Democrat Party, so while "fair" is in their PR vocabulary, it's missing from their ops orders...
What we need is a computerized coin flipper that, for example, takes a random number, computes it to X decimal places and then spits out something like the Xth digit of Pi. or sqrt(2) or whatever...
:)
Of course she is capable of cheating.
Look at the email scandal... everyone is focused on whether or not each individual email was 'classified at the time it was sent'. Why has no one in the media asked the obvious question... "You were the f'ing Secretary of State and the nation's top diplomat... at what point did you think having your own little $300 Linksys server appliance thing stuffed in the towel closet of your guest bathroom was 'ok'?"
- That's not an exaggeration, my understanding is that it was some little cube-server type thing, literally stuffed in the spare guest bath closet.
Last night I was channel surfing when I found Bill O'Riley smirking at some kinda female Dimocrat (my hit misspelling) strategist and telling her there was no way her party would allow Bolshevik Bernie (my name-calling) to win the nomination.
Bill did not say that Lady Killary (oops, tee-hee) of the Teflon Royal House of Clinton is due her criminal coronation, but I knew what he was driving at. .
What should be a real shocker to the Clinton campaign is how close it actually was. She should have won by 20 points or more. This doesn't bode well for her chances in New Hampshire.
Toss #1 - Sanders
Toss #2 - Sanders
Toss #3 - Clinton...Clinton wins!
Why not...that's how a previous Gubernatorial race, between Democratic and Republican candidates was handled.
2) I have seen it reported that there were more like 10 coin tosses of which Mrs. Clinton won 6. less interesting.
3) finally we are talking about 6 of 11,065 delegates. If this is a scam it become another reason not to vote for her, not because she is gaming the system, but because she is so bad at it.
For myself I do not need to makeup reasons to not support Mrs. Clinton.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin...
Here is the story from NPR
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/4652682...
If there are any other outcomes that would be viewed as suspicious, the odds could be even more likely.
This happens all the time in random processes. The human mind seeks to find order in random processes and says "the chances of this particular pattern appearing at random are very low. It likely is not random." We should be asking "what are the chances of any pattern that we would recognize as feeling 'non-random' would occur?" The chances are actually very high. We imagine random distributions as being spread out, but in reality they're "clumpy" like the stars in the sky, and they form recognizable constellations.
First, since Clinton is involved, I'd venture that the odds of something shady happening are more like 1:1.
Second, a statistician expert where I worked calculated how likely the first Viet Nam Draft Number pick (remember the ping-pong balls?) was actually random.... something like 1:67,000.
Trust no one.
The actual question, however, is applicable only to the one candidate - in this case Clinton - since what we are describing was the actual outcome - not the aggregate possibility of two future outcomes.
This is a logical fallacy. If we're using the apparent odd coincidence as possible evidence the toss was not random, we must consider all possible odd coincidences*. Post hoc anomalies (I think that's the right phrase for this) like this crop up everywhere. They make people believe in things like ESP. "What are the chances that I would dream a car accident and then have a car accident shortly after?" they ask. But they need to ask what are the chances there would be any possible dream followed up by any possible similar occurence. If you go hunting for any anomalies in the past, you will find them, but they don't serve as evidence for anything.
BTW, this does not mean the coin toss was fair. You may have other arguments based on Clinton's past behavior to suggest she would be willing and capable of rigging a coin toss. My claim is the anomaly itself is not evidence for anything.
The strict probability of the outcome of six straight beneficial binary decisions is 1/2^6 = 1/64. You are arguing that the probability is only 1/32. The only way you could come to that answer was by twisting the original problem statement to apply to either of two candidates and aggregating/summing the individual odds and then presenting that as the real odds of the outcome - or just by being bad at permutations. I'm pointing out that your answer is to a different question than the one originally asked, which is explicitly "What are the odds that Hillary Clinton was benefited from the outcome of six straight binary decisions (coin tosses)." It's a straight math problem.
Now if you want to argue that despite it being a statistical anomaly it isn't prima facie evidence of fraud, you can make that argument. You have a 1/64 chance of being right, but you can make the argument. I'm looking at it and going - with those odds, Hillary should be down at the track.
First, I’m very sorry for sounding like I’m going off. I’m just interested in this type of thing b/c this issue comes up so often, and I think I see it through the weird lens of electronic communications theory.
It’s a straightforward math problem if someone asks before an experiment “what’s the chance of getting six heads from six tosses.”: 1 in 64. My claim is that if we’re looking for a non-random element to the tosses (e.g. cheating) in the data, we have to consider all the cases we might consider anomalous. I consider either candidate winning all the tosses to be equally anomalous. These two cases make us wonder, “What are the chances that candidate X won all six tosses?” The probability of getting a result that makes us wonder that is 2 in 64, or 1 in 32.
I think the fancy name for this is post hoc anomaly hunting. People can take it to an extreme and find post hoc anomalies in any permutation of outcomes. They could check to see if the tosses lined up with who was mayor in those areas, who was county executive, who was the Congressman, whether they were more urban or rural, until they come upon an anomaly. Then they ask, “What are the chances that in every area that had a Democrat county executive the toss went for Clinton, and it went for Sanders in all the others? It’s straight math: 1 in 64.” Obviously you and I are not doing that; it’s just an extreme example of anomaly hunting.
I would think either candidate winning all the tosses sounds anomalous, so when asking myself “what are chances” I have to consider both scenarios.
Anomaly hunting is done by those attempting to justify that an outcome - while being unusual - has enough precedent to be considered legitimate. If you want to try to apologize for Hillary's cheating (which is what this is seen as) you can certainly go down that road if you choose. I find it unlikely, however, that - in light of Hillary's past behavior - you are likely to find many on this forum willing to join you.
Int he end the odds are we will get a socialist President regardless of left right, up down . That's the point of rigged elections. One party one outcome.
Sanders supporters will learn what it's like to compete against the cheaters who not only doctor the odds, but doctor the judges as well. And, don't forget the fear factor.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it's enemy action. Or, as in this case, cheating. Six coin-toss wins in six coins tossed, violates the Law of Large Numbers (Law of Averages). It also exceeds the threshold of statistical significance, which one declares when the odds in favor of any given series of outcomes fall below one to nineteen (p < 0.05). We see here the vastness of the Clinton Machine.